Is Evolution True?
By: Nicholas Soutter
The first 15 minutes of this video provides a non-technical but comprehensive overview of evolution. It was designed to preemptively address the common talking points of those who claim evolution is nonsense.
After that, the felon, con-man, arrogant, willfully ignorant Young Earth Creationist Kent Hovind (bought his doctorate from a degree mill) will demonstrate a series of common intellectually dishonest debate tactics. I do not recommend this part.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Tags
Who is online
100 visitors
The first 15 minutes are nicely done and non-technical. Rebuts the most common anti-evolution talking points.
Not that anti-evolutionists will care or change their opinions. But then, they don't strike me as being intellectually honest in that regard.
Evolution happens every day. It's an ongoing process.
Anthropogenic climate change happens every day. It's an ongoing process.
Those who deny science should not have power in any way shape or form.
We don’t deny science and we don’t need permission to hold power. Climate change is fraud and global warming is a hoax. We are created beings made in the image of God.
Good to hear.
But …
Confusion?
You do if you deny or reject the science supporting evolution and climate change.
Where's your scientific evidence to support that claim and/or discredit evidence supporting climate change?
That's nice. Prove it. Otherwise, that's just an empty claim with no scientific basis, backing, or evidence. If you really don't deny science as you also claim, then you'll provide scientific evidence to support your claims. That's how science works.
What I found interesting is that as soon as the anti-science anti-evolution young earth creationist starts to speak, he wants to define "truth". And then he just states his opinion about how he just doesn't believe evolution to be a fact. He doesn't give any facts, no data, he just states that he doesn't believe all life as we know it has a common ancestor. He then tries to redefine "theory" to be simply a "supposition" which couldn't be a more ignorant moronic statement.
Supposition: noun - an uncertain belief.
The theory of evolution is not a supposition. It is a scientific theory which is very different than a standard "theory" or religious theory. Kent Hovind completely ignores and skips the actual definition of scientific theory because it would demolish his flawed premise if he didn't.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results . Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning."
Hovind then claims the science community simply "starts with the assumption" that evolution is true. No, they didn't. They started with the assumption it wasn't true, as explained in the first 15 minutes about how Darwin himself was a Christian and wasn't expecting to find the process of natural selection. It caused him a crisis in faith, lost him friends, lost him stature in the community as he was vilified for discovering something that didn't conform to popular belief.
That's the thing about science, it doesn't care what the popular belief is, it only cares whether something can be " repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results".
It was hard to watch Hovind drone on nonsensically twisting and turning trying to redefine truth, redefine theory and claim his definitions are "pretty much what you said" when they couldn't be further from the truth.
I suppose there will always be some who choose to stay mentally stunted and reject reality in preference of the sweet lies they have been fed about being some immortal soul created by some all powerful deity that created this whole vast universe all for our benefit making us essentially the center of the universe. It's a pretty powerful thought, to imagine that an all powerful being is waiting on us hand and foot, waiting for us to whisper to it in silent prayer to ask for magical aid, to beseech it for miracles. no wonder some stay intentionally ignorant and choose the comfortable lie over harsh reality.
Hovind is my prime exemplar for stubborn willful ignorance coupled with a despicable level of intellectual dishonesty. His son (Eric Hovind) is of the same mold with his 'ministry'.
It kills me that people believe these con-men.
Well said
Is evolution true?
Of course.
Do we know all of the answers and have all of the missing links?
Of course not.
Any questions?
I will do my best to reply tomorrow after 10AM EST....
Really interesting video. I have several thoughts on it... and I have to also say that like Lot's wife, I did go past the 15 min mark, but didn't turn into a pillar of salt. That being said, ugh on the explanation.
Well given you then heard from Hovind I would advise taking a shower.
I did feel a little dirty. When there is so much BS being thrown around how could one not?
Hovind is among the worst. He is, in my opinion, the exemplar for intellectual dishonesty. A despicable character.
I only made it to where he said that whales, humans and microbes do not share a common ancestor...
I am not sure I can agree with Evolution. Why?
Well....From Genesis in Christian Bible:
If that is true, and Darwin says Man evolved from an Ape. Then....God must look like an Ape.
I cannot accept the concept that God looks like an ape. Not sure anyone has really seen God, I know I haven't, so not sure that the species of human beings really evolved from an ape.
If it is true that God created Man in His own image, then it means that God is himself an ape.
It in fact God is not an ape, and created Man in His own image, then the story of Evolution is indeed misleading.
Thus, I cannot accept the concept of evolution.
JMOO
Actually, that is a misconception. Evolutionary science never said man evolved from apes. Only that we share a common ancestor.
That is correct, we evolved with the apes from a common ancestor, just like the birds evolved with the dinosaurs from a common reptilian ancestor and likewise the mammals from a reptile.
I can understand that theory. But, it does not seem to hold true when what we have been told Evolution of Man means that Man started out as an ape. Like the theory of evolution shown here;
The theory of evolution between Darwin and the Bible is considerably confusing. As that would make the Biblical story of Adam and Eve and their subsequent generations untrue, as according to the evolution theory, Adam and Eve would have been just a pair of Apes and would not have had to worry about being naked in the Garden of Eden.
It just doesn't make sense. As one or the other theory is a lie. I can see that Man changed over time depending on the environment and having to adapt, and learning new ways of doing things and creating and finding new tools to use that helped them survive. But, I don't believe that they started out as an ape. And I am not so sure that the theory of the Bible is totally true either. It is hard to buy either one. At least for me.
As a biology teacher I have to tell you that I hate that graphic for the very reason you explain, Raven. It makes it look like man came directly from ape. Man comes from the branch of the tree that apes come from but that was a divergence point. Apes went one way and a new species went on a new branch and slowly "evolve" into man. It is not a straight line as that graphic suggests.
If you want to bring it back to the bible, man was man already. But the story of Adam and Eve, is a parable. It is not meant to be literal.
One of my favorite books from the 70's.
The evolution of the human woman.
And a learning tool as to the use of genealogy and inheritance to strengthen the people and enrich the society.
Human beings (all life, actually) are the distant descendants of single celled organisms that were the first life on Earth 3.5 billion years ago. Basically that simply means that human beings are life forms. Fast forward a few billion years and you will find that some of the distant descendants of these single celled organisms have evolved into a sea creature species we now call Saccorhytus — a common ancestor of all animals. This took place about 500 million years ago. Since then (extremely coarse overview) evolution resulted in the emergence of animals → mammals → great apes (Hominidae) → homo sapiens. Homo sapiens have evolved for about 300 thousand years. Ours is the only extant species of our genus (homo) which evolved ~3.5 million years ago.
In effect, all human beings are a special kind of great ape, which is a special kind of mammal, which is a special kind of animal, with is a special kind of life form.
As the graphic at 4:35 illustrates, a fish did not give birth to an amphibian. Rather, amphibians are one species of uncountably many distant variants of 'fish'. Similarly human beings are one of uncountably many variants of mammals.
I am not much of a believer in the Bible stories. Too many things that are said to be true simply don't add up. Too many years between when things actually happened and when the people who wrote it did so, and they were not there to prove any of what they said actually happened, or happened as they said.
As I said, I believe that Man changed in appearance and learning new ways to survive as they made their way migrating around the world. That is proven history from all the archeological findings over time from all over the world. Learning how to communicate with other groups of Mankind from other parts of the world, and each learning from each other, and ever changing in appearance due to intermarriage between the different groups of people.
But, I simply cannot accept that Man evolved from apes as has been promoted by those who believe Darwin's theory of how Mankind changed over time for the reasons I stated. It just does not make sense to me. Nor does the Biblical version. I just can't buy that both Man and apes had the same Mother. Only one was born an ape and the other was born a human being and they just lived differently from each other as they grew up.
Perhaps it is due to my Native American religious beliefs. However, I can appreciate that others believe their own personal version of how Man came to be as Man is today according to their own beliefs. It is the diversity that makes the whole idea of how Man came to be and progressed that makes for interesting debate.
Nor should you; evolution of species is the change in a population over time as variants most suitable for reproduction are selected by nature (the current conditions of the environment in which the population lives).
Imagine comparing the beings in a population with their descendants after 1,000 generations.
You do state one correct aspect of this. Evolution is a THEORY. Because we actually don't have all the information a theory has been developed. The nice part about a theory is that it can be changed with supporting evidence. The theory is presented showing how the supporting evidence is used for the changes / alterations and a consensus is drawn among the experts. It may result in a completely different changer / alteration once others review it and study it.
With a biblical point of view....people have been slaughtered over a difference of opinion. Not really a path worth taking.
I have issue with the biblical story of Adam and Eve. First, science has already shown that we did not start from what the bible depicts. Second, the story of Adam and Even and their subsequent generations depicts that we are all the product of incest. Although unintentional, its there.
What a lot of people fail to realize / understand or maybe just don't know is that the stories in the bible were passed on for generations before they were put to paper. With each generation, the stories become embellished. Parts are forgotten, parts get added, parts get intentionally removed, etc. Even after these stories were put to paper, they have been embellished and changed to fit that particular authors / translators point of view. They change a line or 2 to make a particular character look better or worse to fit what ever political or local belief would be.
I would rather look at the evidence we finding each day and evaluate it and update a theory than fight off murderous groups like Taliban and ISIS because I don't believe exactly as they do.
Sorry, I cannot let those words stand without clarification.
A scientific theory is the highest product of science — the main goal of science. It is a falsifiable, formally defined explanation of empirical observations which has the ability to predict that which has yet to be observed. A scientific theory is the result of the scientific method which demands it be based on a formal, quality, verifiable body of evidence and perpetually pass the scrutiny of fellow scientists who are motivated to find it wrong. Einstein's theory of Relativity continues to be challenged; it would be a major positive career change for a scientist to find it to be wrong. The more profound the scientific theory, the more aggressively it is tested (largely due to its use). Relativity is continuously tested on a daily basis, for example, with GPS.
Indeed. The OT borrows stories from even more ancient oral tradition such as the Epic of Gilgamesh (see Noah's flood).
Agreed. Explore the wonders of nature (which might be the result of a sentient creator) through science rather than fight over whose God is true.
God created both.
I believe that it is literal and that the people that are their ancestors are literal people as well.
Why do you reject the theory of evolution?
Because it is the counterfeit by the great deceiver to persuade humanity to reject their creator and deny His existence.
Seriously. On what factual basis do you reject the theory of evolution?
That's nice. Prove it!
Belief does not equal fact and science directly contradicts a literal interpretation.
It can't be counterfeit when there is actual supporting empirical evidence for it. But there is no empirical evidence to support the existence of any "creator."
If someone told you that, they are misinformed. Evolution does not say man started out as an ape.
Not really. The bible is not a scientific source or authority.
Biblical stories are just silly myths. But if taken literally, they do not hold up to logical scrutiny or scientific analysis. Evolution clearly discredits any literal claim to the Adam & Eve myth.
Biblical stories are not theories. Not even close. Actual theories goes by what the evidence is and where it leads. Biblical stories are just largely made up.
Nor should you.
Do not confuse a scientific theory with the generic use of the term. And the bible does not propose any scientific theory. All it states is just stories and superstitions.
Humans and the rest of the primates like gorillas and chimps evolved and diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. The DNA of chimps and humans is about 96% identical.
You are correct. We cannot discredit any new information just because it would change the theory. The new information is applied, and every step in the process and subjected to the same scrutiny as the initial theory.
Pretty much all the major religions of today have borrowed stories from ancient and current beliefs.
I don't know Perrie, I sort of feel like the second dude from the left when I roll out of the rack in the morning. I could have easily evolved from that one. (-:
I think that interpreting the Christian bible on a strictly literal basis would start your head spinning.
Who says that God has not evolved also? Who says that a "day" is the same? Who is to say that our universe is not on a Lotus petal growing out of Vishnu's navel? Stories that tell of Creation are called Myths because they cannot be verified by present scientific observation.
Personally, I don't claim to know "The Truth," but the Theory of Evolution fits the facts as I know them. Also, because it is a scientific theory, it itself evolves as new data is acquired.
I agree. Seems to me that the best way to approach truth is to follow the evidence to wherever it leads. That is the nature of science. Its polar opposite, religion, presupposes truth and then endlessly works to try to confirm facts to that 'truth'. That practice grows increasingly difficult as modern knowledge (and communication of same) advances.
With the maturation of genetics, science has now another entirely different dimension with which we can evidence the evolution of species. How interesting that genetics corroborates evolutionary science (rather than contradicts). How amazing that anyone could deem evolution pseudoscience based on nothing more than religious beliefs founded on books written by ancient men with pens.
I would say that some of religions adherents "endlessly work to try to conform facts to that 'truth'"
Some are quite level headed and will discuss apparent inconsistencies of their faith as related to scientific theories. It does not shake their faith to do so because their faith, more often than not, comes from their personal experience which cannot be denied. So they realize the cognitive dissonance that arises from the disparate experiences and accept that they do not know all but they believe certain things with surety.
There was a podcast today by BioLogos where devout Christian Dr. Francis Collins (led the Human Genome Project) and a theologian were discussing COVID-19. During the talk a question was raised as to why God allows this worldwide pandemic to occur in the first place. Dr. Collins shrugged his shoulders.
The theologian talked a bit and basically delivered the cliche answer that God works in mysterious ways.
But note: Dr. Collins did not know the answer to this question. He is a brilliant scientist whose career was based on following the evidence to wherever it leads and finding patterns among incredible volumes of data. But he is perfectly content with his belief in the Christian God even though he shrugs off fundamental contradictions of logic.
I find that fascinating.
Science deals with data, religion deals with the self. They don't really need to intertwine.
What happens, then, when they contradict?
Then they contradict. It is not like they are even on the same playing field. Please don't mistake my explanation for understanding of either.
Think of light. Is it wave or is it particle? It has the properties of both. Does it have to be one or the other?
The photon is not a contradiction.
Creationism and evolution are.
I am sorry, I thought you were talking of science and religion. Once again my bad. Creationism is a false science, masquerading under a veneer of pseudoscience, the other actual science. I do not think that they should be considered in the same sentence. Creationism is a false topic pushed by fundamentalists, a sect of religion.
That said, nothing alienates a person more than being told what to think.
I was.
It is religion (in my view).
Depends on your definition of religion.
Creationism, or creation science, was created (tee-hee) (first reference 1979) as a direct result of science confronting religion with data, fact and logic. So, creation science says it is science and therefore can be proven to be incorrect on any number of fronts. When held up to the light as a theory, it does not hold. It is not predictive or repeatable. I am in no way arguing for creation science. I think that it is scientifically invalid and think that this fact should be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt in a science classroom. Would you agree?
The problem I think we are seeing is because we have trouble distinguishing creationism from creationists. Creationism, on a purely logical level, is easily shown to be false. It is the creationists that push this "theory" dogmatically, who I think you have the greatest amount of antipathy for. To posit something as a scientific theory and then argue from the point of dogma, well, that doesn't make sense. These people who would defend creationism are religious people, but I do not think that they encompass all religious people. I would contend that they are a subset of religious people.
Cheers, good sir. I have to do something besides sit here and blather.
I think what I was trying to point out was that all of religion , (meaning religious people) do(es) not endlessly work to try and shove the facts of science into the model of religion. Science is science and religion is religion. One deals in hard data, repeatability and prediction, the other in metaphysical concepts such as the soul.
People are people. No matter what group they are from, they will approximate the same amount of drrrrrs and geniuses and all in between, and it seems not to matter whether they are smart or simple as to the rigid holding onto the dogma of the group. Some do and some don't hold rigidly. It would seem that it is the people who hold to the dogma so tightly who are the most troublesome.
That is my position too, based on my observations as an adult.
It has been quite some time since I have made observations otherwise....
Perhaps you might start with the concept that Man created "God" in his own image. Does the "Spirit" have a countenance or visage... a human face?
I have no idea. I have never met God or seen him/her. The bible says that God made man in his own image, thus,we are expected to believe that God has a human body and human appearance. Another thing, Jesus is said to be the Son of God, thus, he had the appearance of a human being, not an ape.
I may be a bit facetious on this, but, I just can't bring myself to believe the Biblical theory of how mankind came to be. Nor many of the other stories that just don't seem reasonable. But, that is me, and I don't look down on anyone who does believe them. As long as they don't try to cram their own beliefs down my throat.
I don't believe it either. I do like to study mythology from throughout history and all civilizations. It is very interesting.
Same here. I am open to many different beliefs and theories that have spanned many civilizations and see how other people thought about events that occurred over time and compare with my own thoughts. However, I want to see how I feel about them myself. I don't want someone else trying to convince me that how the view it or believe it is the one way to think about it. My own imagination works quite well, thank you.
When God said He made us in His image, most understand that He wasn't speaking of our physical form. John 4:24 says that God is spirit (not that He is a spirit). Most Christians believe that when God said He made us in His image it means that, spiritually, we were made in His image. We share attributes with God that no other creation on Earth shares. Perhaps that will help you in that regardless of how man came to be, you don't have to worry that God looks like an ape.
This graphic always strikes me as a great way to conceptualize the enormous diversity of species resulting from evolution and natural selection over billions of years:
We (in everyday life) see only the extant species. 99.9% of all species that have arisen on our planet are extinct. If those species were still around we would see a continuum of evolution with very slight differences among species. Instead, we see the extremely rare (0.1%) few sporadic species that are still around today.
Look closely on the far right and you will see where human beings emerge (~200 thousand years ago). Bacteria (far left) have been on this planet for billions of years and have a very good chance of continuing until the end of the planet. Human beings, in contrast, are far more complex and particular to our current environment. Our ability to adapt biologically is extremely limited. Our best chance for survival is technological adaptation and one wonders if that will be more effective than the demonstrably impressive biological adaptation that has sustained bacteria through all major changes that have occurred on this planet over the last 3.5 billion years.
The rainbow analogy in the video is, IMO, a very good way to think of speciation.
As the author describes in the video at 10:00, a rainbow shows a progression of color from red ultimately to blue. But nowhere can you point on the rainbow where red has evolved into blue. It is a progression —a very fine one— where the tiniest of almost imperceptible changes will, over many generations, amount to a very large difference. One cannot show where red turns into orange or orange into yellow but if one steps back (looks at the rainbow as a whole — seeing thousands of generations ) one can delineate major color classes from each other.
The major color classes are like the evolution of species along a single line over hundreds or thousands of generations. We start (way back in time) at generation 0, the RED species. After hundreds of variant generations we have the ORANGE species, generation 250. At each generation all we can see is a very slight change in color but over large periods of time (over many generations) the comparison between generation 0 and generation 250 is often stark. RED species is quite different from ORANGE species. Apply this now over thousands of generations and we see generation 0 species RED and generation 2,500 species BLUE .
One might be able to imagine that RED species might evolve into the BURNT ORANGE species while insisting that no way could RED evolve into the BLUE species .
Well, yes, it most certainly can. One must look at the big picture.
In the case of evolution one must be willing to consider the effect of countless generations over millions of years.
In short, if RED → BURNT ORANGE is accepted as plausible, then why is RED → BLUE rejected?
And there lies the problem..... So many can't grasp that period of time.
I tired using the speed of light from the sun approach on a bible thumper once upon a time...… We know the speed of light, we know the distance to the sun, thus eight minutes and 19 seconds after light leaves the surface of the sun, it reaches the surface of the earth. No problem there as the speed of light is accepted. The bible thumper was hanging in there.
The hurdle they couldn't grasp was that sun from known stars when we observe a nova, happened millions of years ago. They just can't process it.
With evolution, I think you just run in to minds that just can't grasp the results/truths of combined scientific facts. Thus they glom onto something simple like the myths of the Bible.
I think you nailed it there. In addition, I think they also cling to biblical myths for emotional comfort or security. After all,believing you're god's "special," loved creation is emotionally satisfying, as opposed to scientific fact of our evolution from earlier ancestors. But you know when they cannot grasp scientific facts when they state the old misconception that man evolved from apes. Also funny how some seem to find that idea offensive too.
Cannot or choose to not try?
I think many people dismiss a path that they suspect will lead them into uncomfortable cognitive dissonance with their beliefs. (This is not purely a religious phenomenon either; it applies to partisan politics too.)
I think that Fly is right. They can not. It's like math. We all learn it, yet some people never get that 1/2 is the same as 50%. It is conceptual and maybe that is why religion and the bible have been so successful. It explains concepts that are very difficult to understand. btw, politics is a type of religion, IMHO.
I observe people routinely who will not even try to comprehend. Far fewer people, in my experiences, are unable to comprehend the basics of evolution. After all, the basics are not that difficult.
When I spend my time (and I have done this routinely online for over a decade) explaining evolution (or things like socialism, philosophy, logic, etc.), I more often than not see refusal to acknowledge rather than inability to comprehend. If someone rejects an idea on step one, that is a pretty clear sign that they refuse to try. In contrast, if one asks questions that clearly are exploratory, that indicates interest in learning.
I strongly suspect that, for the super majority, if one opens one's mind there is sufficient intelligence to comprehend at least the basics. In the case of evolution, the basics are often not more complex than what I described @6.
In short, I think the barrier is more psychological than intellectual.
Well, that is true.
Well, I would say yes to that, but then again, one has to ask the right questions to actually learn for themselves and that is not always obvious even to the individual.
The explanation of where the colors don't delineate in a rainbow, might not translate into evolution for some. Explanations are not always as straight forward as you think in your mind. For instance post 7. I understand it. You do too. Yet the meanings of phenotype v genotype is not that straight forward and if I didn't know what they meant, I wouldn't get it.
I think you get more psychological push back when you don't speak the language. And if you can't learn the language the pushback becomes all you have.
TiG, think of it this way: IF someone walks up to you and says," Watch the first fifteen minutes of this video, that is all correct and the rest is all garbage," and you watch and the first 15 minutes of video is some guy going on about how some idea that is in direct opposition to the things that you believe to be true is actually true, and referencing your beliefs as false, you are just going to toss him in the trash because obviously he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Well, that didn't work well.
You can paint all the pretty pictures that you want, but if the person whom you are trying to connect with does not trust you and believe that you trust them, then it does not matter. You are doomed from the start. You have to start with the status of equality. That is, you have to start from a point where both of the ideas being presented will be given equal consideration. You may in fact have to give the other person the benefit of the doubt and say that you are starting with the position that what he is saying is true, at least to the person who is saying it. Whatever "it" is.
I am not presenting this question in an adversarial way, but how many people have you convinced of anything online? I am willing to bet that the exchange did not begin with you pontificating the "correct" answer.
I guess what I am trying to say is that unless you let the person stand on the same level as you, it is difficult to have them come around to your position.
I actually considered commenting on that. The barrier there is vocabulary (a very common barrier). The concept of phenotype is simple, but the word is intimidating.
I do not follow. My presentation of evolution is not the reason people reject it. People have been rejecting evolution for decades; well before this seed existed. Why is that?
Further, I hold that people are intelligent enough to understand the basics. That is substantially different than presuming that those who do not accept evolution are too stupid to understand it. I think the latter (if it emerges in tone) is a killer right there.
First off, I apologize if I have in any way alluded to your techniques in addressing the problem of people not believing evolution as being the problem why people do not believe in evolution. My bad if I gave you that impression. Perhaps I was using the "you" to much....
People reject evolution because they perceive it as being a threat to the world as they know it or a threat to themselves. It does not comport with the world in which they live or the facts that they have been given as true. In short, it is "Not True." Further, when approached on the subject, it is often from the point of, "I am correct so you had better listen to what I say," rather than,"Would you care to discuss this topic, I am interested in what you have to say about it?" The former raises hackles while the latter disarms. So, one has to consider and acknowledge where the other person is in order to get another to come to one's own point of view. Does that make sense?
I was not positing that people are not intelligent, at all. People are intelligent, more so than we quite often would seem to credit them with. I know that I often do not give credit for intelligence, that is a personal failing on my part. (Still, sometimes calling an idiotic act out as just being an idiot seems cathartic.)
That is my hypothesis too.
I agree. I think the problem is more psychological than it is intellectual.
I tend to agree, TiG. For me it is hard to accept of evolution of mankind evolving from an ape into mankind of today. I have seen many of the pictures of how Mankind looked along the way with the many changes in their physical appearance and an increase in their psychological thinking and learning. Both Influenced by the changes in their environment and types of food sources as they moved around the vast world.
Learning to speak to each other in a similar language, and being able to communicate with other humans with a different language by using sign language with their hands, or communicating by using pictures or drawings. That is true even today with many different people around the world who do not have a similar language.
So humans evolving over the many thousands of years is no thanks to either God, the Bible or their ape ancestry. That is just my own belief.
I understand that. It is an incredible idea. No harm in being skeptical as long as one is open to learn. There are some who do not like an idea and reject simply for that reason. Not good.
Yes, I agree. If it does not fit in their idea of what something should be, they simply close their mind to it and refuse to consider anything else. People cannot learn if they refuse to even listen to anything different from their own viewpoint.
Evolution from one appearance to another over a course of time is believable for me, as that is true of many different species here on earth. It is just the part that Man evolved from an ape that I have trouble accepting. Because that does not fit with the theory that God made Man out of dirt. Like the old saying "Dust to Dust."
There are simply too many theories of how Man came to be to take any one of them seriously. But...that is just my thoughts. There are simply too many concepts of how/where Man came to be for me to buy any one of them above all the others.
I agree that it is not complimentary nor appealing to think of ourselves as highly evolved apes. The beauty of science is that it does not care about such matters; based on multidisciplinary findings (the most recent is genetics) we are clearly highly evolved apes.
The Great Apes evolved about 6 million years ago. Take the generation to be 30 years (conventional) and that translates into 200,000 generations (conservatively since the generation duration has likely increased over time). Consider what that staggering number means. Think of the changes that can take place in a single generation (kids today are, due to their environment, very technically savvy and larger). Imagine what effect variations due to reproduction could have if this process is repeated 200,000 times.
Take human beings as we stand now in our environment. Fast forward 200,000 generations through a changing environment. What might evolve from human beings by time we hit the year 6,002,020 (6 million years from now)? I can imagine a being that would be insulted to think that it is an evolved variant of homo sapiens.
I agree. However, as to thinking about being evolved from apes, what I admire most about them is how they interact with each other on a normal basis. They seem to treat each other with respect and civility.
At times it makes me think that some human beings are the real animals.
I often apply the concept of intellectual laziness when it comes to religious and political zealots.
How can I give you tons and tons of "UP's" on that one????
Adding on ...
So, for example, if Great Ape→Chimpanzee is accepted as plausible, then why is Great Ape→Homo sapiens rejected?
Because the phenotype looks much more what you expect with Great Ape→Chimpanzee than with Great Ape→Homo sapien.
Indeed. That amounts to not doing any research (or thinking) beyond the most superficial.
So why would an individual stop at that level and then go on to claim evolution is pseudoscience (or similar)? Is it a lack of intelligence or some other reason?
Well, let's go back to those words phenotype and genotype. What Dig wrote is not wrong, but it is incomplete, and when you go much further, it becomes very confusing.
Genotype is what the genes are actually. Phenotype is what it looks like. But genes can be expressing only part of the information and that part is what we are seeing. For instance, genotype for freckles (dominate) frequently comes with a hook up for red hair which is recessive. The hook up for red hair is always there, but usually all we see is the phenotype for freckles. That doesn't mean that the genotype will not show up somewhere down the line with another generation with both red hair and freckles.
You can see how confusing that can get. It is conceptual if you are not reading the genes and most of us don't. We either get the information or we don't. So I think the Bible provides a very comforting way of understanding the world. Evolution is messy for many. You might get some, some of the way there, but without a real interest, people will fall back on what is comfortable.
Now if you are talking about people who are young earth faithful, they are not interested in learning about this. The bible has all the information they need. No amount of talking will change their minds as your video well demonstrated.
You are moving to a level of detail that is not necessary to understand evolution. Of course evolutionary science is (as a whole) enormously complex. But understanding the basics is not. My point.
Relativity is enormously complex. Yet it is possible (with study) to understand fundamentals such as time dilation.
Indeed. It is not an intellectual barrier; it is psychological.
The rainbow. The sign God set in the sky as a sign of his covenant with us to never again destroy the whole world with a global flood.
You have really missed the point. You are screwing up my argument.
You have now made his day.
Which, then, would be ironically funny.
Because light refraction didn't exist before God decided to destroy billions of species so he could punish a handful of unruly humans. /s
Apparently, God's supposed infallibility didn't exist before then either...
"6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled." - Genesis 6:6
I find it humorous that the rainbow is supposed to be a sign God won't destroy the earth by flood, but wonder why that should comfort anyone. Obviously, if there is a God, then it can wipe humans out using an unlimited number of ways other than flood, so why would anyone even care if said God promised it wouldn't kill us all the same way, again. It's like the Jig Saw killer telling his captive that he promises not to use the hedge trimmer on any more of his victims fingers and paints a rainbow on the cell wall to remind the captive of his magnanimity.
Blind acceptance. In many cases, such as the rainbow, it takes no real mental effort to see the flawed logic yet some do not even spend those few cycles for critical thinking. Accept what is told and deny anything that contradicts what you have been told.
Religious indoctrination effectively kills critical thinking.
Yeppers!
Indoctrination and/or delusion too.
I really like the rainbow analogy.
There is no "missing link".
Certainly true. We just do not have the fossil remains of every generation. But if someone is determined to believe that evolution is false, that is one of many absurd complaints that will be raised.
Wouldn't that be so great if we did. I would so love to see them. I'm not one that is big on science. I was able to pass my science courses with a B grade, but, a good bit of it was rather confusing to me. So if I could see the remains of what each generation looked like I could likely better understand things from a science perspective. Nor do I buy the Biblical version
I can buy that Man continued to evolve over time due to changes in environment, the food selection and various weather patterns that developed as he migrated around the planet. Man also continued to evolve due to inner marriage with different Tribes that they met along the way as they traveled to different parts of the world as the environment changed. Most all plants, insects and animals have evolved over time, and many evolved into new species. And so it is not hard to accept that Man also evolved himself over time. The Neanderthals are the ones most people associate with Mans' evolution. And I have seen a few men who look very much like the Neanderthals. And I wonder what genes they might still have related to them. ??
I can believe all about Mans' evolution except......it's just...evolving from the apes that is hard for me mentally to accept. That is why I so wish that we could indeed see the what the generations looked like as man evolved throughout the thousands of years. It might give me a different perspective and picture in my head. The one going from the ape to modern man that I posted earlier just is not believable for me.
Maybe when I walk on I will find the answers to my confusion and all things will become clear.
Imagine trying to comprehend 200,000 generations of fossils (and that is just for homo-sapiens from great apes).
I know...it does not sound feasible, but, as to the differences between humans and apes I am sure there would be points where changes would be defined. Perhaps not outstanding changes, but, all things don't happen over night. That would be where science came into play. Changes might be very subtle, in the eyes, ears, teeth, fingers, toes, lips, limbs. Fingernails is another place where changes could take place and perhaps not readily noticed. And they may not all take place readily with each generation.
If I were younger I would love to take on that task. I have always wanted to be an archeologist, and that, for me, would be a dream job. Even if I didn't live long enough to finish the job. I am sure I could appease part of my curiosity. (grin)
Nowadays DNA is the most effective means of understanding the evolution of species. Finding fossils is a very slow, luck-driven process. DNA, however, brings the power of modern computing to bear.
Yes. At this point in time the DNA is the most effective way to test the basic ways of evolution. But, you are right, the discovery of the various fossils of Man and its recovery can indeed take such a long time.And being able to find them in a related time frame to make the testing able to be done sequentially so that there are no time spaces between generations to interfere with being able to do the DNA testing from one generation to the next in line time wise.
However, even with the long generational gap between the fossils, it would still be great to follow the evolution changes in Man during those times. It would be very interesting and enlightening to follow our evolutionary growth throughout the generations.
There's just no way to seriously deny evolution anymore, not in this new age of genetic sequencing. We can literally look at the genetic blueprints for organisms and see shared heredity and common descent across species.
1) Genotypes produce phenotypes.
2) Genotypes change over time (DNA replication is not an error-free process).
3) Thus, phenotypes change over time (see 1).
Evolution is a fact. There's no rational way around it.
Agreed. And while the evolutionary sciences are broad and very sophisticated, one need not have a Ph.D. in Biology to understand the basics of how species evolve over time based on variations selected by a varying natural environment.
For the super majority of people in the USA (given the education and access available) inability to comprehend does not seem to be the barrier.
I'm not so sure about that. I've been losing faith in the basic intelligence of people for a while now.
By the way, here's a neat site tracking the evolution of the coronavirus, if anyone's interested - Nextstrain.org
Every dot on the phylogeny chart shows date, location, and mutation (if present).
Being the equivalent of a single-celled organism (but a virus), there is very little gene flow across descending lineages, and there are already thousands of sequenced lineages with slight variations from around the world.
It amazes me that we can track that kind of thing now, almost in real time.
Understandably. But my question (challenge) is: is this a failure of intelligence or a psychological factor (e.g. the desire for comforting 'answers')?
I expect that every active member on this site has the intelligence to comprehend the basics of evolution. Even the most hostile individual on NT against evolution has, to me, demonstrated intellectual ability sufficient to understand the basics. The view of this individual is so utterly at odds with so many basic and well-known scientific facts in this subject area that confirmation bias seems the most likely explanation.
Finally, there are just too many outstanding introductory videos on Evolution available to everyone. I have identified many over the years, especially those from the Christian group BioLogos.
To not understand the basics is to not try.
Pandemic aside, it is a cool time to be alive.
I wonder if the evolution deniers deny the chart you offered which shows the evolution of coronavirus?
That's an example of something I'm not so sure about. Confirmation bias is something that can be recognized in oneself with a little introspection, and a little intelligence, and people don't have to be slaves to it. Minds can grow and evolve (figuratively speaking), but not if they lack enough intelligence to process and accept known, demonstrable facts about reality.
Probably.
That is my question: do they lack sufficient intelligence to expand, for example, their understanding of 'micro'evolution (e.g. mutations of coronavirus) to 'macro'evolution? I do not think so.
I think so.
This greatly expanded new edition—comprehensive, understandable, and meticulously documented—will give insights to readers of all backgrounds. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood takes a different look at a currently hot topic. Evidence that could revolutionize our understanding of origins is carefully explained. You will be challenged to consider fresh ideas in this age-old debate.
Part I of In the Beginning discusses, in quick overview, 131 categories of evidence from biology, astronomy, and the physical and earth sciences. More technical discussions and documentation are found in the author’s extensive endnotes.
Does the scientific evidence support evolution or creation?
Part II describes the hydroplate theory, developed during more than 35 years of study by Dr. Walt Brown, a former evolutionist. This theory explains a catastrophic event in earth’s history and solves a host of recognized problems. For decades, evolutionists complained that creationists only criticized evolution and did not offer sound scientific theories of their own. The hydroplate theory ends that complaint and explains, with overwhelming evidence, earth’s defining geological event—a worldwide flood.
Thirty-nine other frequently asked questions fill a fascinating Part III, including:
Bryan Nickel’s Hydroplate Overview Presentation
There is no scientifically credible or accepted evidence of creationism. And your link is also just a religiously biased site. Not scientific. Actual science contradicts a literal interpretation of creationism.
Any of us can browse the web and find people arguing for any number of things. Seeding in a comment accomplishes nothing.
What is your argument? What is your factual basis for denying evolution?
What I find fascinating is that you are more than willing to accept 'scientific' explanations that correlate with your reading of the Bible while rejecting the mainstream science which has overwhelming, multidisciplinary corroboration of evolution.
Evidence for Creation
God Does Exist
Real Truth Is Knowable
Nature Reveals the Creator
Science Verifies the Creation
Scripture Is Unique
https://www.icr.org/evidence
Topics
The truth will set you free!
Can you take any one of the many classical arguments you are tossing onto my seed and make your own argument? That is, do you understand these arguments to the point of being able to make them or are you simply copy and pasting?
Young earth creationists wouldn't know truth if it bit them in the face.
None of that proves creationism. All that is just religious assumptions. It does not provide empirical evidence nor follow the scientific method. Science follows the evidence to a conclusion. You are starting with a conclusion and simply trying to make "evidence" fit it. That is both ignorant and intellectually dishonest.
I think some do, to a degree. I've heard some say microevolution exists, but not macroevolution or vice versa. Clearly some lack the intelligence to understand basic concepts in the biological sciences, or even science in general.
Probably. Remember, to some, evolution is "pseudoscience" and a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists." So does that mean to them that Dr. Francis Collins is misguided or being "decieved?"
Possibly both. But certainly comfort and emotion plays a part.
There are plenty of people who are not convinced that tiny changes, naturally selected, over hundreds of thousands of generations explains differences from generation 0 (Great Apes) to generation 200,000 (homo sapiens). I can appreciate and accept not being convinced; it is like being agnostic on the science of evolution. Individuals agnostic on evolution could easily accept the science given time and more research.
In contrast, however, what you are referencing is arrogant, blatant denial of science. To label evolution ' pseudoscience ' and deem it a worldwide conspiracy is haughty willful ignorance. It is a clear sign that critical thinking has been suppressed and replaced with blind acceptance of faith-based ' truths '.
This is why I suggested people not go past 15 minutes because at that point the video turns to Kent Hovind who is one of the worst 'celebrity' deniers of evolution today. He is pure intellectual dishonesty ... using the same tired tactics and platitudes he has used for decades. A waste of time for anyone except for those interested in understanding the psychology of individuals like Hovind.
After all this time, Hovind no doubt knows he is completely full of shit. Like Ken Ham, he is a con-man, but far worse in terms of dishonesty. But there are people who inexplicably buy the crap these peddlers sell. That is what is so sad, that modern human beings fall for such nonsense.
Indeed.
Which seems to indicate a possible lack of intelligence.
Or is it the seemingly common desire to believe that which is comforting over that which is true (but harsh)?
I'm going to go with comfort. It seems some people have a hard time accepting reality for what it is: that we are fortuitous products of evolution, but nothing more. Or that our existence is fleeting and relatively brief, ect.. But the idea of a deity that watches over us and promises us an afterlife of reward is certainly quite comforting, like a fuzzy warm feeling of pretending we are something special.
Yeah, comfort is my net conclusion too.
I made it through 25 minutes before I had to cut it off.
Is evolution true? I can't say that it's true, but I believe it to be the best explanation we have currently.
Hovind goes after the word true and continuously makes the statement that it (evolution) is a belief. WELL.
Using his same standards of true, one can and should make the argument that christianity is a belief and not true.
The evangelical movement in the US was essentially founded by Francis Schaeffer IV and Jerry Falwell Sr. Francis was the intellectual, Falwell the preacher.
I closely followed Schaeffer in the 70's and early 80's. In his book No Final Conflict, he stated that “scripture is true in all it teaches”. Does that mean that all species (as currently known) were created at the same time? The bible doesn't say, but evolution gives a way to say no.
Does scripture teach that no new species can be created? NO. New species of plants and animals have been created. Scripture doesn't say how man was created, only that he was. Perhaps god took a primate and turned it into a man. We don't know.
Ken Ham of course wants to reject all science on the basis of “we weren't there”. This is of course a ridiculous argument against anything. I wasn't there when my great-great-great parents were alive, yet I still believe they existed.
Schaeffer said that in the end, there is no conflict beteen science and scripture if you look at it in the correct light.
Evangelicalism has forgotten the face of its father.
Congrats on sitting through 10 minutes of Kent Hovind. You are very patient.
My stomach started heaving, so I had to stop.
Yet he has a following.
Sadly.
Well....I myself see a difference between them. There is simply too much conflicting stuff in the Bible. I think those who wrote the various Books really didn't fully know the truth themselves, as most of what they wrote about happened long before their time. I feel that most of what they wrote seemed to be hearsay from their Elders and Prophets who were also not alive at the time much of what was written in the Bible actually happened. Plus, the Bible was rewritten several times by others who translated it into their own language, and some of it was misinterpreted due to the different meanings of some words and therefore rewritten to be more acceptable to the people it was written for. So fully believing the what is in the Bible is hard for me to do.
Also, the religious beliefs of my Cherokee Tribe and my own ancestors who passed those beliefs down to the next generations are in conflict as well with much of what is written in the Bible. But, that does not mean that our beliefs of how the world and Mankind were made is wrong. And, we do not expect those who are not Native Americans to agree with our beliefs.
Most all religions as based upon a Supreme being of some sort, with the addition of several demi Gods and Goddesses added in the mix.
So actually there is no one religion except in the minds of individuals.
I agree. But that was not Schaeffer's viewpoint.
We can say it's "true," as in that is has a very high degree of certainty as a scientific theory. Not only is it the best explanation (I have not heard any other "explanation" outside of religious proclamations), but it also has supporting empirical evidence, which has only been build upon and reinforced over time, while there is nothing presented to discredit it.
Which is a disingenuous statement.
Which is blind acceptance and rejecting of any question or challenge. Odd that people accept that obediently and without question. But they might question any other claims made in other areas.
The fossil record shows an evolutionary progression from earlier ancestral forms to the current one homo sapiens have today. There was no sudden appearance of humans, as if god snapped his fingers and here we are.
Sounds like apologetic nonsense. Absolutely there is a conflict and direct contradictions if one looks at both logically and critically.
I was just trying to point out that Hovind has forgotten the teachings of the founding fathers of modern evangelicalism. I was a fire breathing evangelical once in a different life.
I can relate...I was on the receiving endof such beliefs by my primary caregiver, for years.