@VulcanMan6 CommentsscienceEvolutionThe BibleStarted 10mos agoActive 4mos ago

The science of evolution?

Open ANY science textbook and you'll have your answers. What exactly are you being taught in your homeschooling, the bible?

▲▲Reply to this Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

13 Replies

@TruthHurts101 from Washington commented…10mos10MO

Please refer to "Evidence That Demands a Verdict," by Josh McDowell (read it independently of my parents) "The Case For Faith" by investigative journalist and former atheist Lee Strobel, who set out to "prove" evolution but ended up converting when he discovered all the evidence was against him (read it), The Ultimate Proof of Creation, by Dr. Jason Lisle, "Faith and Logic" by the same author, "The Case for Christ," (Lee Strobel), "The Answers Book, vols 1-4," "Demolishing Supposed Bible Contradictions (Ken Ham). That's where I'm drawing this information from smarty. Read them all. Watched multiple debates. Creationism is logical.

P.S. please provide the evidence for your position and I will gladly talk about it.) :)

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…10mos10MO

If creationism had objective evidence, then why is it not found or supported by any scientific evidence, institution, or curriculum? Why exactly is the only support of creationism biblical or theoretical, if it was supposedly objective? Is all of science, astrophysics, evolutionary biology, etc. just some kind of mass conspiracy made to lie to you..?

Here's a simple, quick read on the basics of evolution: https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/refresh/cont-ed-62/olli/s21/kahn-evidence-of-evolution.pdf

(I don't know if it'll link on here, so you might have to just copy+paste it)

Or, again: literally ANY science textbook or journal can explain it to you, with evidence. Meanwhile your "evidence" is mythological text, anecdotal experiences/beliefs, and unfalsifiable theoretical what-ifs.

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

@TruthHurts101 from Washington commented…10mos10MO

I'll refute the claims of your pdf now. First off, the reasoning that evolution is true because there are variations in dogs turning into wolves, coyotes, etc, is not evidence because it is actually variations within kinds, not bacteria evolving into fully intelligent human beings. It's circular reasoning because the definition of evolution changes between the first and second examples, resulting in an absurdity. Creationists believe in and support the fact that one common DOG ancestor is the father of the wolves, coyotes, and other things, and that one common cat ancestor existe… Read mored for cougars, tigers, etc, or one common horse for zebras, donkeys, etc. We are perfectly fine with that. What we aren't fine with is the idea that our ancestor is soupy bacteria that was stuck by lightning and evolved into all living things. This particular aspect of evolution is impossible because bacteria (1) must have a host, aka a more complex life form to survive or they die within 48 hours, meaning that they can't have been the first living thing, their very nature requires another body to live in and multiply in (2) they reproduce asexually, meaning that they cannot pass along genetic information that could evolve to their offspring. This is elementary science.

Also as for DNA "evidence of evolution, Charles Darwin himself calculated that 96 percent DNA similarity must exist between two species for them to have directly evolved from one another, whereas chimps and humans have only 85 percent similarity, according to more recent studies. The most problematic thing for evolution, however is that information cannot be created in DNA; indeed it can only be lost, meaning that while variations within kinds are possible, evolution on a large scale would violate one of the most elementary laws of genetics. So even if bacteria could breed, they couldn't pass on "new" information, such as that necessary to create algae, plants, and other life, through this process. Plus, evolutionists believe that algae was the next form of life after bacteria, but this too reproduces asexually and could not pass down the characteristics necessary to evolve.

As for the fossil evidence, there is none to speak of. No transitional fossils exist other than those that have been pieced together by imaginative and biased scientists hoping to prove their theory. For example "Lucy", long cited as "proof" of molecules-to-man evolution, consisted of bones from separate species found hundreds of feet apart, and plastered together. Creationists account for fossilization through the flood, which was a traumatic event that formed fossils fast. Fossils have been formed within months in modern times as well, due to burial in mud slides not unlike those that would occur under flood-like conditions.

Also your appeal to check "the textbooks," and "journals," is a faulty appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. Just because they are published in school textbooks does not lend any logical credence to your claim; nor does the fact that the majority of scientists believe it. Majority consensus has been wrong multiple times before, such as believing that draining blood healed people when in fact it killed multiple people. If you present more evidence I would be happy to continue this discussion; if not, please consider these very problematic things your worldview fails to explain.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@moviebuff_mandyGreenfrom Alabama corrected…10mos10MO

Again, a lot to fact check and correct here.

First, the idea that bacteria can only survive in a host body is not universally true. There are many free-living bacteria which exist independently in various environments, and some of these can actually form endospores to survive harsh conditions for extended periods.

Secondly, asexual reproduction in bacteria does not prevent the transfer of genetic information. Bacteria can exchange genetic material through processes like transformation, conjugation, and transduction. These processes can lead to genetic variation, which is the bedrock of evo… Read morelution.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Link Context •••Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…10mos10MO

(It said my response was too long, so I'll have to include it in parts, labelled)

"First off, the reasoning that evolution is true because there are variations in dogs turning into wolves, coyotes, etc, is not evidence because it is actually variations within kinds, not bacteria evolving into fully intelligent human beings."

This is simply your own misunderstanding of what evolution is. Firstly, dogs did not "turn into" wolves, coyotes, etc. because wolves, coyotes, etc. ARE dogs. Modern dogs did not, and do not, evolve into wolves and coyotes, but modern dogs share aRead more common ancestor with wolves and coyotes. Members of an ancient dog species would have gradually undergone small genetic changes that, over time, altered the physical and genetic makeup of the dogs, thus eventually forming what we would classify as a "new species" of dog, which end up including wolves, coyotes, and all other modern canine species. Traced back far enough, all living things will have a common ancestor, where an ancient species changed/branched off into, eventually, the species we have today, including us.

Secondly, bacteria did not morph directly into a human being, obviously. Ancient cellular life forms would have gradually evolved into a plethora of multicellular creatures over the course of 100s of millions of years. As multicellular life forms further evolved, they created new and more "complex" species, which continued all the way through the modern day. Humans did not evolve from bacteria, we evolved from an older primate hominid species.

As a visual, here's an interesting interactive evolutionary map where you can see a simplified tree showing how life changed over time, and you can even click any two species/groups and see what and how far back their common ancestor likely was: https://www.evogeneao.com/en/explore/tree-of-life-explorer

"It's circular reasoning because the definition of evolution changes between the first and second examples, resulting in an absurdity."

Firsly, that's not what circular reasoning means, but more importantly, they literally addressed the two types: "Biologists sometimes define two types of evolution based on scale: • Macroevolution, which refers to large-scale changes that occur over extended time periods, such as the formation of new species and groups. • Microevolution, which refers to small-scale changes that affect just one or a few genes and happen in populations over shorter timescales. Microevolution and macroevolution aren't really two different processes. They're the same process - evolution - occurring on different timescales."

"Creationists believe in and support the fact that one common DOG ancestor is the father of the wolves, coyotes, and other things, and that one common cat ancestor existed for cougars, tigers, etc, or one common horse for zebras, donkeys, etc. We are perfectly fine with that."

Great, because that is quite literally what evolution is, exactly as I also explained above, albeit incredibly oversimplified. What you seem to be missing is the fact that, if you continue to go back further, those common ancestors each have common ancestors with each other. For example, the ancient common ancestor of modern dogs and the ancient common ancestor of modern cats can both be traced back to an even more ancient and simple mammalian ancestor, that would eventually lead to canines and felines and other more specialized mammal groups.

Again, this can be shown in the link to the evolutionary tree map I sent you, by clicking on dogs and cats, which will show you their common ancestor and how far back it was.

"What we aren't fine with is the idea that our ancestor is soupy bacteria that was stuck by lightning and evolved into all living things."

Good, because that's not how science would explain it either. Evolution works just like how you described in your previous sentence, with every species sharing a common ancestor, but every common ancestor was simply one of many species at the time, with their own common ancestors. Common ancestors can continue to be drawn from every species, living or extinct, as the common ancestors continue to appear less and less "complex", until eventually the ultimate common ancestor of all common ancestors is single-cellular organisms. Bacteria is simply the eventual common ancestor of every common ancestor, through the exact same process as all evolution, but on a massively larger timescale. Again, that evolutionary tree map link helps simplify/visualize this.

"This particular aspect of evolution is impossible because bacteria (1) must have a host, aka a more complex life form to survive or they die within 48 hours, meaning that they can't have been the first living thing, their very nature requires another body to live in and multiply in (2) they reproduce asexually, meaning that they cannot pass along genetic information that could evolve to their offspring."

Firstly, there are more forms of single-celled/microbial life than just "bacteria", but more importantly: 1) not only do not all microbes require hosts to survive, but the time during the emergence of early single-cellular life on earth was significantly hotter and more hostile to modern life, but excellent conditions for the incubation and growth of micro-organisms. 2) Actually, studies suggest that asexual reproduction is MORE likely than sexual reproduction to lead to more significant genetic mutations (as shown in this study, for example: https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2022/08/01/uta-study-asexual-reproduction-leads-to-harmful-genetic-mutations#:~:text=UTA%20study%3A%20Asexual%20reproduction%20leads%20to%20harmful%20genetic%20mutations,-Findings%20in%20whiptail&text=A%20team%20led%20by%20biologists,than%20those%20utilizing%20sexual%20reproduction.), not to mention the reduced, oxygen-less atmosphere would likely have further increased the levels of solar radiation at the time, likely leading to more mutations.

"Also as for DNA "evidence of evolution, Charles Darwin himself calculated that 96 percent DNA similarity must exist between two species for them to have directly evolved from one another..."

Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "evolved from one another" because, as previously addressed, species like humans did not "evolve from" chimps, we merely share a common ancestor with modern chimps.

"...whereas chimps and humans have only 85 percent similarity, according to more recent studies."

No, all recent studies show a +98% similarity. According to the American Museum of Natural History, "Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA. (https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps#:~:text=These%20three%20species%20look%20alike,98.8%20percent%20of%20their%20DNA.)" The 85% statistic you might be thinking of is actually with mice, which humans share around 85% of DNA similarities with (https://thednatests.com/how-much-dna-do-humans-share-with-other-animals/#:~:text=%F0%9F%90%AD%20Humans%20share%20around%2085,of%20their%20DNA%20with%20chickens.).

"The most problematic thing for evolution, however is that information cannot be created in DNA; indeed it can only be lost, meaning that while variations within kinds are possible, evolution on a large scale would violate one of the most elementary laws of genetics. So even if bacteria could breed, they couldn't pass on "new" information, such as that necessary to create algae, plants, and other life, through this process. Plus, evolutionists believe that algae was the next form of life after bacteria, but this too reproduces asexually and could not pass down the characteristics necessary to evolve."

Again, this is simply a misunderstanding of what process is actually taking place. The changes taking place are the result of genetic mutation, which is what changes the DNA to allow for the genetic variation necessary for evolution in the first place. Because you are right; without genetic mutation, no changes could occur, and the process of evolution would not have existed, thus no life beyond the earliest of microbes would have been able to exist. Genetic mutation is literally the foundation for all evolution.

(Part 1/2, continued...)

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…5mos5MO

I've diligently read all of your rants against old TruthHurts101, and I have to ask why on earth you even care what ever people believe in if you do not believe in a God or higher power of any kind? Why does it matter to you? If other people can find meaning and value in religion why'd o you feel an obligation to intrude? It doesn't affect you. And yet you just either spent 3 hrs typing this up or asked ChatGPT to do it for you. Why invest all the time and effort when it doesn't affect you? I'm just asking.

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

Show 1 reply

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…10mos10MO

(Part 2/2, continued...)

"As for the fossil evidence, there is none to speak of. No transitional fossils exist other than those that have been pieced together by imaginative and biased scientists hoping to prove their theory."

This is blatantly anti-scientific, conspiracy theory claims. All of science has long had consensus on this, and is an incredibly well-documented field of paleontology and biology. The original link I had sent you even explains this: "If two or more species share a unique physical feature, such as a complex bone structure or a body plan, they may all have… Read more inherited this feature from a common ancestor. Physical features shared due to evolutionary history (a common ancestor) are said to be homologous. To give one classic example, the forelimbs of whales, humans, birds, and dogs look pretty different on the outside. That's because they're adapted to function in different environments. However, if you look at the bone structure of the forelimbs, you'll find that the pattern of bones is very similar across species. It's unlikely that such similar structures would have evolved independently in each species, and more likely that the basic layout of bones was already present in a common ancestor of whales, humans, dogs, and birds. Some homologous structures can be seen only in embryos. For instance, all vertebrate embryos (including humans) have gill slits and a tail during early development. The developmental patterns of these species become more different later on (which is why your embryonic tail is now your tailbone, and your gill slits have turned into your jaw and inner ear)2• Homologous embryonic structures reflect that the developmental programs of vertebrates are variations on a similar plan that existed in their last common ancestor.

"For example "Lucy", long cited as "proof" of molecules-to-man evolution, consisted of bones from separate species found hundreds of feet apart, and plastered together."

Firstly, again, "Lucy" is evidence of a species (Australopithecus afarensis) that is a common ancestor of humans and other hominids, which would still have been nearly 4 billion years before the earliest life form. No single microbe evolved directly into the first human, so if that's what you're thinking, then you're grossly misunderstanding the scientific evolutionary timeline.

Secondly, the "Lucy" skeletal remains are all from the same species and individual, however there are several other remains of entirely different species and individuals as well, that are not a part of the "Lucy" skeleton. In fact, we know of about 21 different hominid species, according to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, as recognized by the majority of international scientists.

"Creationists account for fossilization through the flood, which was a traumatic event that formed fossils fast. Fossils have been formed within months in modern times as well, due to burial in mud slides not unlike those that would occur under flood-like conditions."

Firstly, there is no actual evidence of any global flood taking place, at least according to any biblical timeframe (the last time the earth was even mostly covered with water was likely around 3-4 billion years ago, according to Harvard University). In fact, there is overwhelming evidence AGAINST the presumption of a biblical flood, including direct evidence of entire civilizations around the world that lived right through the supposed flood without any issues; the only source that even supports the idea of a biblical flood IS the bible itself, which is not a scientific or objective source on it's own. No other external evidence supports any global flood, only against it.

Secondly, although floods and mudslides can produce conditions excellent for fossilization, material has to be at least 10,000 years old to be scientifically classified as "a fossil", otherwise the remains are simply preserved, according to National Geographic (although that is moreso just semantics). More importantly, all fossils are dated significantly further back than the supposed biblical flood, many by millions or even billions of years, depending on when the species died.

"Also your appeal to check "the textbooks," and "journals," is a faulty appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. Just because they are published in school textbooks does not lend any logical credence to your claim; nor does the fact that the majority of scientists believe it."

Science is a peer-reviewed process discovered through objective, directly-tested and experimented evidence. An appeal to authority would only apply if I told you to believe science simply because a cool scientist believes it, which is not the case; the reason we accept science is because it is the objective process of attaining information about our universe. If you cannot accept objective-based evidence, then there is absolutely nothing you can use to argue for anything, because science is quite literally HOW we learn physical information. You shouldn't believe a text just because it says so (including the bible), you should accept a text if the data and objective evidence confirms it. That is what separates blind faith from objective science.

"Majority consensus has been wrong multiple times before, such as believing that draining blood healed people when in fact it killed multiple people."

Science is, again, a process. People long ago were only capable of acquiring knowledge through the limited means of study and technology they have access to, just as we do today. The very reason we know that blood-letting is not an inherent cure is because our technological capabilities advanced, thus furthering our scientific understanding of germs, cells, etc. that were previously unknowable. Science is fundamentally all about gaining new, objective information to constantly support, reshape, and confirm our current understanding of the world around us. To reject science is to reject any sense of objective consensus or argumentative foundation.

...

I'd recommend you check out this video (or entire channel) for a scientific breakdown on many creationism myths/claims/arguments: https://youtu.be/rIzENnMbsxA

(Hopefully the link works)

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this comment.

@VulcanMan6

Last activeActivity1,878 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias85%Audience bias25%Active in

PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

The science of evolution?

13 Replies

About this author

Discussions

Voter guides

Data & analytics

Candidates

About