Experimental Evolution

[The Barbarian]

Where is this a consequence of evolution?

For example, the common descent of Darwin's finches from a single mainland species has been shown. Even creationists admit the fact. But also genetics, showing common ancestry of all known living things on Earth, the numerous transitional series in the fossil record, embryology and so on, all show common descent.

Common descent isn't observed as a consequence of evolution...

Sure it is. For example, all hamsters in the US are descended from a pair collected in Syria in the 1930s. All the variations we see evolved in just a few decades.

Here's another definition of evolution:
"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

Not a very good one. Nothing in evolutionary theory supposes that evolution makes things more complex or better. For example, mammalian skeletons are more simple than reptilian ones, even though mammals evolved from reptiles.

Also, why do the majority of people state that this is evolution?

Almost all scientists use the proper scientific definition. But as you have seen, a lot of other people who don't know much about it, have all sorts of personal definitions.

And another:
"process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state"

That's just completely wrong. No wonder you hate evolution. If I thought it was like that, I wouldn't like it, either.

I'd like to see an observation of e-coli becoming something other than e-coli.

How would you define speciation for bacteria? You're going find that's a real problem, because they don't sexually reproduce. But let us know what you think.

a population of humans, different than other humans, simply means they are different humans. Still human.

So H. erectus and H. habilis., and H. ergaster are all just like us? No, they were not. They were species in their own rights, although still human. Neandertals were probably just different race of humans; they could interbreed, and often did.

You should probably know that most of today's creationist organizations don't deny that new species appear from old ones. Most also admit new genera. And sometimes they go as far as new families.

 

[Andre_b]

For example, the common descent of Darwin's finches from a single mainland species has been shown. Even creationists admit the fact. But also genetics, showing common ancestry of all known living things on Earth, the numerous transitional series in the fossil record, embryology and so on, all show common descent.



Sure it is. For example, all hamsters in the US are descended from a pair collected in Syria in the 1930s. All the variations we see evolved in just a few decades.



Not a very good one. Nothing in evolutionary theory supposes that evolution makes things more complex or better. For example, mammalian skeletons are more simple than reptilian ones, even though mammals evolved from reptiles.



Almost all scientists use the proper scientific definition. But as you have seen, a lot of other people who don't know much about it, have all sorts of personal definitions.



That's just completely wrong. No wonder you hate evolution. If I thought it was like that, I wouldn't like it, either.



How would you define speciation for bacteria? You're going find that's a real problem, because they don't sexually reproduce. But let us know what you think.



So H. erectus and H. habilis., and H. ergaster are all just like us? No, they were not. They were species in their own rights, although still human. Neandertals were probably just different race of humans; they could interbreed, and often did.

You should probably know that most of today's creationist organizations don't deny that new species appear from old ones. Most also admit new genera. And sometimes they go as far as new families.

I just quoted you the definitions of evolution based on the dictionary. So yes the official definition is indeed the ones I gave and what people believe snd teach.

the Finches remain finches with different characteristics based on their adapted locations they aren’t another animal. They are still a bird and finches. What kind of example is that?! Natural selection. How is this related to a finch was common ancestor to something other than a bird?

regarding the bacteria, well the scientists tell us what type it is, so clearly there’s a definition. However, they remain the same type and never become something else even after 70,000 generations. And that’s for a simple life form, yet they want people to believe humans evolved from chimps/apes quicker?

 

[The Barbarian]

I just quoted you the definitions of evolution based on the dictionary.

Maybe if you got your science definitions out of science books, you've be less confused.

the Finches remain finches with different characteristics based on their adapted locations they aren’t another animal.

But their alleles are now different and they comprise a number of species that cannot reproduce with each other. That's what evolution does when it improves fitness. But as you learned, most creationist organizations do not deny speciation.

How is this related to a finch was common ancestor to something other than a bird?

You have it backwards. The finches had ancestors that were not birds. Would you like to learn how we know this?

How would you define speciation for bacteria? You're going find that's a real problem, because they don't sexually reproduce. But let us know what you think.

regarding the bacteria, well the scientists tell us what type it is...

So if you can't even answer that, what makes you think you can tell us about it? BTW, one of my degrees is in bacteriology. And you've got a lot of catching up to do before you can answer me on that. Try again?

 

[Andre_b]

Maybe if you got your science definitions out of science books, you've be less confused.



But their alleles are now different and they comprise a number of species that cannot reproduce with each other. That's what evolution does when it improves fitness. But as you learned, most creationist organizations do not deny speciation.



You have it backwards. The finches had ancestors that were not birds. Would you like to learn how we know this?

How would you define speciation for bacteria? You're going find that's a real problem, because they don't sexually reproduce. But let us know what you think.



So if you can't even answer that, what makes you think you can tell us about it? BTW, one of my degrees is in bacteriology. And you've got a lot of catching up to do before you can answer me on that. Try again?

You haven’t proven anything regarding bacteria. Just trying to play word games like the pseudoscientific community does.

Pretty ridiculous comments regarding the dictionary definition because the dictionary does use the definition provided by science

Seems like they don’t know themselves since it’s constantly challenged/changed because the definitions are broad/vague and some of it isn’t observed. This is why we should stick to what God told us and not man trying to tell us.

Furthermore, some species that don’t breed with each other doesn’t prove anything. Because they still do with others of the species or else they wouldn’t reproduce and again are of the same TYPE of animal.

It’s like saying 7 ft people don’t reproduce with 3ft people. Therefore they are no longer able to reproduce. Well not necessarily, it could be all kinds of factors why, and since scientists are making many guesses. It doesn’t make it fact. Many things they haven’t studied or know exactly why they won’t.

or like Blue Jays won’t reproduce with finches, therefore they are no longer birds.

 

[The Barbarian]

You haven’t proven anything regarding bacteria. Just trying to play word games like the pseudoscientific community does.

I just have a lot of experience in working with bacteria, so I understand more about them than most people. And yes, knowing what one is talking about is an adavantage.

Pretty ridiculous comments regarding the dictionary definition because the dictionary does use the definition provided by science

Well, that's a testable assumption. Let's take a look...

What is evolution?

In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection.
What is evolution?

Evolution may be defined as any net directional change or any cumulative change in the characteristics of organisms or populations over many generations—in other words, descent with modification… It explicitly includes the origin as well as the spread of alleles, variants, trait values, or character states.
John Endler 1986

Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest proto-organism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions
Douglas Futuyma 1986

On the simplest perspective of all, biological evolution is analyzed initially as changes in allelic frequencies at a single locus. More complicated phenomena must be explained by means of combinations of these minimal units
Daniel Hartl

A change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations
Evolution

Seems like they don’t know themselves since it’s constantly challenged because the definitions are broad/vague and some of it isn’t observed.

As you now realize biologists are quite clear on the definition, and that change in allele frequencies is well-documented and directly observed.

Furthermore, some species that don’t breed with each other doesn’t prove anything.

They are different species by definition. Reproductive isolation is what makes new species. No point in denial. Even many creationist organizations now admit the fact; they could hardly deny it, given the evidence.

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
Answers in Genesis
Speciation

Because they still do with others of the species or else they wouldn’t reproduce and again are of the same TYPE of animal.

Each species is a different type of organism. If it wasn't, they'd be able to breed with other types. You know this.

This is why we should stick to what God told us and not man trying to tell us.

Since God never told us that evolution is not a fact, but some men would like to convince us that He did, you would do better if you took your advice.

 

[Andre_b]

I just have a lot of experience in working with bacteria, so I understand more about them than most people. And yes, knowing what one is talking about is an adavantage.



Well, that's a testable assumption. Let's take a look...

What is evolution?

In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection.
What is evolution?

Evolution may be defined as any net directional change or any cumulative change in the characteristics of organisms or populations over many generations—in other words, descent with modification… It explicitly includes the origin as well as the spread of alleles, variants, trait values, or character states.
John Endler 1986

Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest proto-organism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions
Douglas Futuyma 1986

On the simplest perspective of all, biological evolution is analyzed initially as changes in allelic frequencies at a single locus. More complicated phenomena must be explained by means of combinations of these minimal units
Daniel Hartl

A change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations
Evolution



As you now realize biologists are quite clear on the definition, and that change in allele frequencies is well-documented and directly observed.



They are different species by definition. Reproductive isolation is what makes new species. No point in denial. Even many creationist organizations now admit the fact; they could hardly deny it, given the evidence.

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
Answers in Genesis
Speciation



Each species is a different type of organism. If it wasn't, they'd be able to breed with other types. You know this.



Since God never told us that evolution is not a fact, but some men would like to convince us that He did, you would do better if you took your advice.

They can breed. And you know this. A species is part of the same “type” branch in taxonomy. You know this. So playing with the word “species” to imply something doesn’t make it true.

and yes God did tell us:
“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
According to this cats produce cats, dogs produce dogs, all the varieties fit in there of course. A cat will never produce something other than a cat. People can imagine this all they want but it isn’t reality. They can play with the species word and try to categorize things all they want, but all the animals do is bring forth after their own KIND never becomes something else. Play with the word “populations” “species” all you want.
All it is, is DIFFERENT traits. That’s it.

But then scientists try to add more things and categories then try to blend things to make it sound like something else is happening when it’s all man made categories of species which aren’t even all agreed upon. Man makes up an order to try and understand things but at times causes themselves confusion.

and because you believe spices is proof you must believe in the same race propaganda that the theory also provides because different species exists in humans therefore some are more animals than other and less than others according to the theory just like it does in the animal kingdom, etc. Darwin even explained this. Hence all the evils that came after that nonsense belief. Which is still part of it today.

your scientific quote is literally the same as the definition I gave you, with less fancy words. Seriously…

 

[The Barbarian]

They can breed. And you know this. A species is part of the same “type” branch in taxonomy. You know this. So playing with the word “species” to imply something doesn’t make it true.

No, you're wrong about this. Speciation is reproductive isolation. We we can, for example, make lions and tigers mate in captivity, but in the wild it never happens. Lions are a type of cat. Tigers are another type of cat. No point in denying the obvious.

and yes God did tell us:
“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

You are willing to accept that God did it, but you refuse to accept the way He did it. That's how creationists differ from other Christians. It doesn't mean that you aren't a Christian; it's not a salvation issue.

But then scientists try to add more things and categories then try to blend things to make it sound like something else is happening when it’s all man made categories of species which aren’t even all agreed upon.

Which is a major problem for creationism. If creationism were true; there would be nice, clear distinctions between species. But as Darwin pointed out, that's not the case. We see all sorts of intermediate cases that are very difficult to resolve. And that's exactly what you would see if evolution produced those living kinds.

and because you believe spices is proof you must believe in the same race propaganda that the theory also provides because different species exists in humans

You've been listening to racists too much. Not only is there only one human species today, there is only one race of humans. Formerly, we did have other races of humans, like Neanderthals. But not today. Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races today. Interestingly, the data that confirmed this, was by a team headed by a devout evangelical Christian. Would you like to learn about that?

therefore some are more animals than other and less than others according to the theory just like it does in the animal kingdom, etc.

Very few creationists still believe that foolishness. Although there were many such creationists in the early decades of the 20th century, Hitler's regime pretty much put an end to that. It is true that as late as the 1990s, some creationist leaders were still writing about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people. But few today would have your outlook on it. It is true that we have an animal body. Our bodies are made naturally, but that is not what makes us a living soul. Read your Bible.

Darwin even explained this.

Darwin outraged creationists when he argued that if "savages" were brought to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like other Englishmen. For him, the perceived inferiority of other nations was cultural, not biological. Like most Englishmen of his time, he thought England was the pinnacle of humanity. But he was able to see that had no biological basis.

This is not to say that all creationists of the time were racists. It's interesting that Samuel Wilberforce, a loud and persistent opponent of Darwin's theory, was (like Darwin) an opponent of slavery and rejoiced with Darwin when England banned slavery throughout the Empire.

Today, most creationists have rejected the racist foundations of creationism.

If you get nothing else from this discussion, remember that evolution is not about increasing complexity or even necessarily about improvement. In some cases, (like mammalian skeletons) it actually simplifies things, and occasionally, it can actually make things worse.

If you just remember "descent with modification", it might help.

 

[Andre_b]

No, you're wrong about this. Speciation is reproductive isolation. We we can, for example, make lions and tigers mate in captivity, but in the wild it never happens. Lions are a type of cat. Tigers are another type of cat. No point in denying the obvious.



You are willing to accept that God did it, but you refuse to accept the way He did it. That's how creationists differ from other Christians. It doesn't mean that you aren't a Christian; it's not a salvation issue.



Which is a major problem for creationism. If creationism were true; there would be nice, clear distinctions between species. But as Darwin pointed out, that's not the case. We see all sorts of intermediate cases that are very difficult to resolve. And that's exactly what you would see if evolution produced those living kinds.



You've been listening to racists too much. Not only is there only one human species today, there is only one race of humans. Formerly, we did have other races of humans, like Neanderthals. But not today. Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races today. Interestingly, the data that confirmed this, was by a team headed by a devout evangelical Christian. Would you like to learn about that?



Very few creationists still believe that foolishness. Although there were many such creationists in the early decades of the 20th century, Hitler's regime pretty much put an end to that. It is true that as late as the 1990s, some creationist leaders were still writing about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people. But few today would have your outlook on it. It is true that we have an animal body. Our bodies are made naturally, but that is not what makes us a living soul. Read your Bible.



Darwin outraged creationists when he argued that if "savages" were brought to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like other Englishmen. For him, the perceived inferiority of other nations was cultural, not biological. Like most Englishmen of his time, he thought England was the pinnacle of humanity. But he was able to see that had no biological basis.

This is not to say that all creationists of the time were racists. It's interesting that Samuel Wilberforce, a loud and persistent opponent of Darwin's theory, was (like Darwin) an opponent of slavery and rejoiced with Darwin when England banned slavery throughout the Empire.

Today, most creationists have rejected the racist foundations of creationism.

If you get nothing else from this discussion, remember that evolution is not about increasing complexity or even necessarily about improvement. In some cases, (like mammalian skeletons) it actually simplifies things, and occasionally, it can actually make things worse.

If you just remember "descent with modification", it might help.

God SAID how he did it. You literally quoted that he didn’t directly underneath where I quoted Gensis on how animals reproduce

“All creationist were racists”. Sorry I don’t believe you. Jesus wasn’t racisit, he even said we are all one blood. So does many other places in the Bible. Please don’t state empty statements just to fit in your imagination theories. Just because some “Christians” might have been proves nothing. Should I say all Catholics are pedophiles and that Catholics teach pedophilia just because a period of time in history this was heavy in that church?! Clearly no. So please don’t do the same.

furthermore, the theology of Darwin is indeed what the theory teaches or else you wouldn’t have the survival of the strongest species or more intelligent, etc etc. That’s literally the theory.

it’s amazing why people are so stuck to a terrible theory just because it’s currently the fad in the communities.

furthermore, rape wouldn’t be wrong in the theory since were just evolved from animals and we’re just propagating our species according to the theory. If we come from animals then God lied when he stated he created Adam and Eve and how he did it.

Lots of fables are created by the theory of evolution. And that fable started in the times of Greece prior to Christ, this isn’t new:

The philosophers of ancient Greece had their own creation myths. Anaximander proposed that animals could be transformed from one kind into another, and Empedocles speculated that they were made up of various combinations of preexisting parts.


the concept behind the term was developed by a number of Greek and Roman philosophers. Namely Anaximander, Empedocles, and Lucretius.

Anaximander laid out a theory of evolution more than 2,000 years ago. As we will come to see, this theory sounds eerily similar to the modern concept of evolution. Anaximander was the second philosopher of the Milesian school, coming after Thales and before Anaximenes. Anaximander’ teacher, Thales, predicted an eclipse which modern astronomers say took place on May 28th, 585 B.C.E. We can use this historical event as a marker, thereby placing both Thales and Anaximander in this time period.


Yep the myth came from the Iron Age era! But some “modern” folks think it’s new.

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:9

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools” Romans 1:21-22


“3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

2 Timothy 4:3-4
The definition of science is KNOWLEDGE.

1 Timothy 6:20 “avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called”

Colossians 2:8

“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”

Proverbs 16:25 states, "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death."

During the end times:

The flood would be mocked
The second coming would be mocked
The scriptures would be mocked

It’s getting more and more:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” 2 Peter 3

 

[The Barbarian]

God SAID how he did it.

No, that's the creationist addition to His word. He says that the earth brought forth life, but He didn't give us the details how. You don't approve of the way he did it, because it conflicts with your new doctrines.

“All creationist were racists”.

You're wrong, and I showed you so. Let me show you again:

This is not to say that all creationists of the time were racists. It's interesting that Samuel Wilberforce, a loud and persistent opponent of Darwin's theory, was (like Darwin) an opponent of slavery and rejoiced with Darwin when England banned slavery throughout the Empire.

Today, most creationists have rejected the racist foundations of creationism.

Be honest. It's a good policy and God approves of that.

furthermore, the theology of Darwin is indeed what the theory teaches

Darwin's belief was that God created the first living things:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixedlaw of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

or else you wouldn’t have the survival of the strongest species or more intelligent, etc etc. That’s literally the theory.

Here's Darwin's theory as he set it out:

1. More are born than can live; there's a competition for space, food, mating, etc.
2. Every organism is somewhat different than its parents.
3. Some of these differences affect the ability of the organism to survive long enough to reproduce.
4. The useful ones tend to be passed on to succeeding generations, while the harmful ones tend to be removed from the population, and this can lead to the formation of new species.

Every one of these points have been verified by observation.

furthermore, rape wouldn’t be wrong in the theory since were just evolved from animals and we’re just propagating our species according to the theory.

No, that's wrong, too. Darwin pointed out (in The Descent of Man) that such conduct would be harmful to a population in which it existed, and if it was very common, such a population would be replaced by other populations that did not have such harmful characteristics.

Anaximander laid out a theory of evolution more than 2,000 years ago.

Scientists had, for a very long time, realized that some kind of evolution must have occurred. Darwin's great discovery was how it worked.

Yep the myth came from the Iron Age era! But some “modern” folks think it’s new.

And now you realize what was new about Darwin's theory; he figured out the way it works.

(random Bible verses tossed out)

I was wondering when that was coming. I get how invested you are in your new doctrines. But the reality is, they aren't supported by scripture, and the evidence clearly shows that they are wrong.

 

[Dale]

Where is this a consequence of evolution?

Common descent isn't observed as a consequence of evolution...

Also, why do the majority of people state that this is evolution? When clearly the definition you provided isn't.

Here's another definition of evolution:
"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

Now that's an extremely vague definition and the imagination can get carried away with it.

And another:
"process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state"

Haven't see this observation in the scientific method. I'd like to see an observation of e-coli becoming something other than e-coli. People can add the word "populations" but that means nothing. a population of humans, different than other humans, simply means they are humans with different characteristics to other humans. Still human.

For example, the common descent of Darwin's finches from a single mainland species has been shown. Even creationists admit the fact. But also genetics, showing common ancestry of all known living things on Earth, the numerous transitional series in the fossil record, embryology and so on, all show common descent.



Sure it is. For example, all hamsters in the US are descended from a pair collected in Syria in the 1930s. All the variations we see evolved in just a few decades.



Not a very good one. Nothing in evolutionary theory supposes that evolution makes things more complex or better. For example, mammalian skeletons are more simple than reptilian ones, even though mammals evolved from reptiles.



Almost all scientists use the proper scientific definition. But as you have seen, a lot of other people who don't know much about it, have all sorts of personal definitions.



That's just completely wrong. No wonder you hate evolution. If I thought it was like that, I wouldn't like it, either.



How would you define speciation for bacteria? You're going find that's a real problem, because they don't sexually reproduce. But let us know what you think.



So H. erectus and H. habilis., and H. ergaster are all just like us? No, they were not. They were species in their own rights, although still human. Neandertals were probably just different race of humans; they could interbreed, and often did.

You should probably know that most of today's creationist organizations don't deny that new species appear from old ones. Most also admit new genera. And sometimes they go as far as new families.

The word "evolution" was around before Charles Darwin. It has meanings that have nothing to do with biology. It is true that modern biologists define evolution as a change of alleles.

Don't be confused by the way "evolution" is used by philosophers or on common parlance.

 

[Dale]

God SAID how he did it. You literally quoted that he didn’t directly underneath where I quoted Gensis on how animals reproduce

“All creationist were racists”. Sorry I don’t believe you. Jesus wasn’t racisit, he even said we are all one blood. So does many other places in the Bible. Please don’t state empty statements just to fit in your imagination theories. Just because some “Christians” might have been proves nothing. Should I say all Catholics are pedophiles and that Catholics teach pedophilia just because a period of time in history this was heavy in that church?! Clearly no. So please don’t do the same.

furthermore, the theology of Darwin is indeed what the theory teaches or else you wouldn’t have the survival of the strongest species or more intelligent, etc etc. That’s literally the theory.

it’s amazing why people are so stuck to a terrible theory just because it’s currently the fad in the communities.

furthermore, rape wouldn’t be wrong in the theory since were just evolved from animals and we’re just propagating our species according to the theory. If we come from animals then God lied when he stated he created Adam and Eve and how he did it.

Lots of fables are created by the theory of evolution. And that fable started in the times of Greece prior to Christ, this isn’t new:

The philosophers of ancient Greece had their own creation myths. Anaximander proposed that animals could be transformed from one kind into another, and Empedocles speculated that they were made up of various combinations of preexisting parts.


the concept behind the term was developed by a number of Greek and Roman philosophers. Namely Anaximander, Empedocles, and Lucretius.

Anaximander laid out a theory of evolution more than 2,000 years ago. As we will come to see, this theory sounds eerily similar to the modern concept of evolution. Anaximander was the second philosopher of the Milesian school, coming after Thales and before Anaximenes. Anaximander’ teacher, Thales, predicted an eclipse which modern astronomers say took place on May 28th, 585 B.C.E. We can use this historical event as a marker, thereby placing both Thales and Anaximander in this time period.


Yep the myth came from the Iron Age era! But some “modern” folks think it’s new.

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:9

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools” Romans 1:21-22


“3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

2 Timothy 4:3-4
The definition of science is KNOWLEDGE.

1 Timothy 6:20 “avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called”

Colossians 2:8

“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”

Proverbs 16:25 states, "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death."

During the end times:

The flood would be mocked
The second coming would be mocked
The scriptures would be mocked

It’s getting more and more:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” 2 Peter 3

Andreb: “The definition of science is KNOWLEDGE.”

Science is a Greek word meaning knowledge but that isn’t the definition of modern science. Actually, there is no fully agreed definition of what modern science is, but here is the most common view. Science involves observing the actual world, then putting forward a testable hypothesis to understand it better. Then that hypothesis is tested against the facts, either by experiment or observation.

Andreb: “The flood would be mocked.”

No verse in the Bible says that belief in a worldwide flood would be mocked.

 

[The Barbarian]

No verse in the Bible says that belief in a worldwide flood would be mocked.

In fact, the Bible doesn't say that the Flood was worldwide.

 

[The Barbarian]

You literally quoted that he didn’t directly underneath where I quoted Gensis on how animals reproduce

Well, let's take another look at that...

and yes God did tell us:
“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

According to this cats produce cats, dogs produce dogs, all the varieties fit in there of course.

No, it doesn't say anything about reproducing. You just added that to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

 

[Andre_b]

In fact, the Bible doesn't say that the Flood was worldwide.

Well thanks for providing you and the millions/billions that are now ignorant of the flood. Right so God decided to have Noah build a boat when he could have just walked a few miles. All mountains across the world have millions of fossils and closed petrified clams.

 

[Andre_b]

The word "evolution" was around before Charles Darwin. It has meanings that have nothing to do with biology. It is true that modern biologists define evolution as a change of alleles.

Don't be confused by the way "evolution" is used by philosophers or on common parlance.

Evolution of Darwin is a philosophy. Not science. It’s the same philosophy of the Greeks of old. Natural selection is part of the theory but the rest is implied, fables and purely imagination without observed evidence.

interesting how the folks on here completely ignore that no animals or “population” has ever been observed to become a different type of animal.

 

[Andre_b]

No, that's the creationist addition to His word. He says that the earth brought forth life, but He didn't give us the details how. You don't approve of the way he did it, because it conflicts with your new doctrines.



You're wrong, and I showed you so. Let me show you again:



Be honest. It's a good policy and God approves of that.



Darwin's belief was that God created the first living things:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixedlaw of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species



Here's Darwin's theory as he set it out:

1. More are born than can live; there's a competition for space, food, mating, etc.
2. Every organism is somewhat different than its parents.
3. Some of these differences affect the ability of the organism to survive long enough to reproduce.
4. The useful ones tend to be passed on to succeeding generations, while the harmful ones tend to be removed from the population, and this can lead to the formation of new species.

Every one of these points have been verified by observation.



No, that's wrong, too. Darwin pointed out (in The Descent of Man) that such conduct would be harmful to a population in which it existed, and if it was very common, such a population would be replaced by other populations that did not have such harmful characteristics.



Scientists had, for a very long time, realized that some kind of evolution must have occurred. Darwin's great discovery was how it worked.



And now you realize what was new about Darwin's theory; he figured out the way it works.

(random Bible verses tossed out)

I was wondering when that was coming. I get how invested you are in your new doctrines. But the reality is, they aren't supported by scripture, and the evidence clearly shows that they are wrong.

Sure the points you listed. So why do the deceivers show pictures of chimps/apes slowly becoming humans without evidence of any animal ever doing this. Stop playing with the word species when no species branches off from Cath to Dog. Species are simply VARIETIES IN A TAXONOMY aka type of animal.

 

[Andre_b]

Andreb: “The definition of science is KNOWLEDGE.”

Science is a Greek word meaning knowledge but that isn’t the definition of modern science. Actually, there is no fully agreed definition of what modern science is, but here is the most common view. Science involves observing the actual world, then putting forward a testable hypothesis to understand it better. Then that hypothesis is tested against the facts, either by experiment or observation.

Andreb: “The flood would be mocked.”

No verse in the Bible says that belief in a worldwide flood would be mocked.

I don’t think you actually read the Bible passages I gave you or your willingly ignoring it. The flood is being heavily mocked by unbelievers and believers alike, and a lot of believers ignore this like you folks are. Saying the flood was local and many say it was just legend, even believers.

Read carefully:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” 2 Peter 3

they are willingly ignoring the flood account like if it’s just a myth and not worldwide when the verse says “the world… being overflowed with water PERISHED”

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure the points you listed. So why do the deceivers show pictures of chimps/apes slowly becoming humans

Most creationists have wised up and no longer do that. They've finally figured out that humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees; both evolved from a common ancestor.

Stop playing with the word species when no species branches off from Cath to Dog.

If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in huge trouble. Canids and felines have a common ancestor, but neither evolved from the other.

Species are simply VARIETIES IN A TAXONOMY aka type of animal.

Humans are one type of primate, chimpanzees are another. Dogs are one type of carnivore, cats are another. "Type" isn't a scientific term in taxonomy. Informally, it means "identifiable grouping."

 

[The Barbarian]

In fact, the Bible doesn't say that the Flood was worldwide.

Well thanks for providing you and the millions/billions that are now ignorant of the flood.

It's just a fact that the flood account in Genesis does not say it was global. Read your Bible and learn.

Right so God decided to have Noah build a boat when he could have just walked a few miles.

There was a great flood in the middle east about the right time, and Noah would not have been able to just walk away; it covered nearly 200,000 square miles in a very short time. We don't know for sure if the Flood story is an allegory or not, but if it was not, then that would very likely be the flood of Noah.

All mountains across the world have millions of fossils and closed petrified clams.

No, that's wrong. For example the Cascade mountains are not. The were formed by volcanic processes. The Himalyas are composed of the fossils of coastal organisms. We know why. When India moved north, it collided with Asia and the resulting folded-up coast was the Himalaya mountains. It's still going on; India moves a few centimeters a year into the rest of Asia.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution of Darwin is a philosophy. Not science.

You're still confusing science and philosophy. Darwn's theory of evolution makes four testable claims that have been repeatedly verified by observation and experiment. Which is what a scientific theory does.

Natural selection is part of the theory but the rest is implied, fables and purely imagination without observed evidence.

No, that's wrong, too. Even many creationists admit that new species arise from existing ones. Would you like me to show you again? And of course knowledgeable creationists admit that there is much evidence to support evolution:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
The truth about evolution

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional
creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

interesting how the folks on here completely ignore that no animals or “population” has ever been observed to become a different type of animal.

Even many creationist organizations recognize new species, genera, and sometimes families from existing ones. Would you like to see that? These new types of organisms are well-known.