Politics & Religion: A Simple Question

Started by Kekerusey, November 21, 2012, 02:01:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Clarke

Almost all evolution is outside local maxima, because the local maxima in any given environment is inherently unstable, due to the Red Queen effect.

Irtaviš Ačankif

This only explains why sexual reproduction is advantageous. One must explain why local maxima move in the direction of the absolute maximum. Why won't local maxima move in the direction of unadaptability and lead to extinction of species and even phyla? Why have so many phyla survived from the Cambrian period?
Previously Ithisa Kīranem, Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng.

Name from my Sakaš conlang, from Sakasul Ältäbisäl Acarankïp

"First name" is Ačankif, not Eltabiš! In Na'vi, Atsankip.

Clarke

There is no well-defined absolute maximum, because the maximum for any one species depends on all the other ones. By the time the one species has evolve closer to its local maxima, all the others have too, which probably means the local maximum (and thus selective pressure) have moved around.

Also, adaptability will always be more beneficial than unadaptability because the environment isn't static.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

My thought is that God stopped pushing 'evolution' uphill when man appeared on the scene. This world was created for us, and it is our duty (which we have failed at) to push things 'further uphill'. If we don't, then entropy takes over.

Just take a look around. You can see entropy everywhere!

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Irtaviš Ačankif

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on December 10, 2012, 05:38:31 PM
My thought is that God stopped pushing 'evolution' uphill when man appeared on the scene. This world was created for us, and it is our duty (which we have failed at) to push things 'further uphill'. If we don't, then entropy takes over.

Just take a look around. You can see entropy everywhere!
;D
Kinda agree with that, though as I said I do not believe in evolution as I find it statistically improbable and at best a very unelegant way for God to bring life to the world.
Previously Ithisa Kīranem, Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng.

Name from my Sakaš conlang, from Sakasul Ältäbisäl Acarankïp

"First name" is Ačankif, not Eltabiš! In Na'vi, Atsankip.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 10, 2012, 09:09:37 PM
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on December 10, 2012, 05:38:31 PM
My thought is that God stopped pushing 'evolution' uphill when man appeared on the scene. This world was created for us, and it is our duty (which we have failed at) to push things 'further uphill'. If we don't, then entropy takes over.

Just take a look around. You can see entropy everywhere!
;D
Kinda agree with that, though as I said I do not believe in evolution as I find it statistically improbable and at best a very unelegant way for God to bring life to the world.

I agree with the 'statistically improbable part' as well as 'thermodynamically impossible'. However, I think the way that each 'level' of living thing is rooted in the level below it is a signature of a brilliant Creator.

How do you think God should have brought life into the world?

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Clarke

#66
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on December 10, 2012, 05:38:31 PM
My thought is that God stopped pushing 'evolution' uphill when man appeared on the scene. This world was created for us, and it is our duty (which we have failed at) to push things 'further uphill'. If we don't, then entropy takes over.

Just take a look around. You can see entropy everywhere!
Entropy always wins eventually.  ;)

(Not to mention the fact that things have evolved just as much while man has been around as before he was.)

Kekerusey

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 10, 2012, 12:42:58 PMSorry that I did not answer your question. I was replying to Clarke. I believe in Genesis as a stylized account of the creation of the world. Obviously I do not believe that God created the world in 6 days, but Genesis 1 represents an overview of the order of creation. It was not intended to be a cosmological textbook and was written for people 3000 years ago.

It's not obvious at all ... in order to claim that Genesis is "obviously" flawed (as I say it isn't at all obvious because even stupid ideas should be rejected rationally) you must have a reason. What reasons did you apply? What method?

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 10, 2012, 12:42:58 PMThus I believe that the universe as around 13.75 billion years old, that it originated from a singularity, etc. I do not however believe in evolution, due to mostly technical reasons. Evolution as current theories posit seem to only be able to get stuck in local maxima of adaptability to the environment, and evolution outside of local maxima has not been observed in practice. Also, thing like the Cambrian explosion seem harder to explain. God could easily have progressively created things on Earth over a long period of time, which conforms to His refraining from overly interfering with the world. Finally, the origin and development of life is a field where experiment is necessary, while cosmology is governed by strict laws of physics.

The theory of evolution is based on exactly the same principles as any other scientific theory, indeed the theory of evolution borrows so heavily from just about every other scientific discipline, it does not exist in isolation and if it were demonstrated to be as flawed as you claim science itself would fall apart in pieces around our feet.

No, experiment is not necessary ... like any other scientific theory, observations are required NOT experiment. Experiments are merely a means of generating observable phenomena.

The Cambrian explosion seems simple enough in principle to me ... much life wiped out by some ecological disaster, huge potential for rapid expansion & evolution of existing life. What's the problem?

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 10, 2012, 03:16:39 PMThis only explains why sexual reproduction is advantageous. One must explain why local maxima move in the direction of the absolute maximum. Why won't local maxima move in the direction of unadaptability and lead to extinction of species and even phyla? Why have so many phyla survived from the Cambrian period?

Is this some kind of play on fitness to a given environment? Evolution doesn't have a direction except to make organisms more suited to the environment in which they exist.

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on December 10, 2012, 05:38:31 PMMy thought is that God stopped pushing 'evolution' uphill when man appeared on the scene. This world was created for us, and it is our duty (which we have failed at) to push things 'further uphill'. If we don't, then entropy takes over.

Just take a look around. You can see entropy everywhere!

Oh god! Not the second law of thermodynamics tripe you creationists keep trotting out?

Keke
Kekerusey (Not Dead [Undead])
"Keye'ung lu nì'aw tì'eyng mì-kìfkey lekye'ung :)"
Geekanology, UK Atheist &
The "Science, Just Science" Campaign (A Cobweb)

Kekerusey

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on December 10, 2012, 11:10:05 PMI agree with the 'statistically improbable part' as well as 'thermodynamically impossible'. However, I think the way that each 'level' of living thing is rooted in the level below it is a signature of a brilliant Creator.

Try reading "Climbing Mount Improbable" ... it explains exactly how such apparently improbable things can be achieved.

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on December 10, 2012, 11:10:05 PMHow do you think God should have brought life into the world?

REPHRASED: How did life on this planet develop? A. by the scientifically demonstrable, verifiable & falsifiable "Theory Of Evolution" or B: Magic!

Keke
Kekerusey (Not Dead [Undead])
"Keye'ung lu nì'aw tì'eyng mì-kìfkey lekye'ung :)"
Geekanology, UK Atheist &
The "Science, Just Science" Campaign (A Cobweb)

Irtaviš Ačankif

Quote from: Kekerusey on December 11, 2012, 12:17:25 PM
by the scientifically demonstrable, verifiable & falsifiable "Theory Of Evolution" or B: Magic!
Evolution is not demonstrable, since you cannot create another Earth, throw some organic material on it, and then see what happens. It is not verifiable because we cannot travel back in time and see what happened. It is not falsifiable, because it deals with events that cannot have any directly falsifying and verifying evidence. We can only say "evolution is very improbable" or "evolution is very probable".

As for "obviously flawed" I do not mean Genesis as a whole. I mean Genesis 1. Also I did not claim it was flawed, only stylized for an ancient audience. The reason why I do not believe in a 6-day creation is basic cosmology. The universe would have needed to expand at an improbable rate and tear itself apart, unless physical laws were created after the universe's matter, which is very improbable.

@'Eylan: I do not believe evolution is *thermodynamically* improbable. Complex creatures often contain even more entropy than simple ones due to their, well, complexity.
Previously Ithisa Kīranem, Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng.

Name from my Sakaš conlang, from Sakasul Ältäbisäl Acarankïp

"First name" is Ačankif, not Eltabiš! In Na'vi, Atsankip.

Clarke

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 01:21:24 PMEvolution is not demonstrable, since you cannot create another Earth, throw some organic material on it, and then see what happens.
1) You're thinking of abiogenesis, not evolution.
2) Evolution is used all over the place in computing. It is not only readily demonstrable, but readily exploitable.

QuoteIt is not falsifiable, because it deals with events that cannot have any directly falsifying and verifying evidence.
Find a creature that does not mutate. That would be falsification of evolution.

QuoteThe universe would have needed to expand at an improbable rate and tear itself apart, unless physical laws were created after the universe's matter, which is very improbable.
The universe is already expanding at, to quote Space Balls, ludicrous speed, and hasn't torn itself apart yet. ...What would tearing itself apart even mean? Space doesn't do that. It's not a rubber sheet or anything that has finite elasticity. :-\

Quote@'Eylan: I do not believe evolution is *thermodynamically* improbable. Complex creatures often contain even more entropy than simple ones due to their, well, complexity.
There is no thermodynamic problem with evolution, or life. While life forms are localized pockets of low entropy, they can only maintain that low entropy by increasing entropy in the surrounding environment. (e.g. by expelling heat.)

Kekerusey

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 01:21:24 PMEvolution is not demonstrable, since you cannot create another Earth, throw some organic material on it, and then see what happens. It is not verifiable because we cannot travel back in time and see what happened. It is not falsifiable, because it deals with events that cannot have any directly falsifying and verifying evidence. We can only say "evolution is very improbable" or "evolution is very probable".

First read this:

QuoteScience & Scientific Methodology v1.1

Introduction
The following discussion is designed to explain how science as a methodology applies to the real world.

Discussion
Science is a methodology and any interpretations based with the scientific knowledge base should be necessarily derived from properly derived data. By "scientifically derived" I refer to the characteristics of science. These were necessarily established during the US legal trial, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1996:

Science

* It is guided by natural law;
* It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
* It is testable against the empirical world;
* Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
* It is falsifiable.

"Science" which begins with an unshakeable assumption, is not true science. True science is about having no assumptions until they have been accepted through the application of evidence and have demonstrated resilience to genuine falsifiability experiments. Though "creation science" was once the predominant "scientific" theory it was outmoded in geological terms in the early 1800's, in natural history terms in the mid 1800's and in genetic terms in the late 1800', early 1900's. The evidence against "scientific creationism" is now so huge that it is no longer considered to be an adequate hypothesis (and even 'hypothesis' is an inadequate term for creationism in this day & age) to explain the nature of the universe as it is understood today.

A scientific theory is not a guess or an approximation but an extensive explanation developed from well-documented and reproducible sets of data derived from experiments, which repeatedly observe natural processes. From such data models are developed and it is important to note that these models (and their subsequent outcomes) are not decided in advance but can be modified and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Science is constantly subject to peer-review and is a self-correcting attempt to understand nature and the observable universe. Science is not teleological that is to say theories do not start with a conclusion, refuse to change and acknowledge only data that the initial conclusion supports. Further, science does not base theories on untestable collections of dogmatic, mythical or mystical proposals but is characterised by questions, hypothetical proposals, design of empirical models and conceptual frameworks with the aim of researching natural events.

Those who claim that science and naturalism are two variants are mistaken; science is the study of the natural universe turning to the natural universe for the explanation. Science and naturalism are one and the same.

The scientific method relies upon two phases, those of observation and hypothesis or theory. Hypotheses and theories are slightly different but in principle a hypothesis must be verifiable or repeatable, falsifiable and it must only use as accepted facts theories which have yet to be found flawed. All hypotheses are under "attack" and may be removed from understood science in one of two ways ... an observation may be made which does not fit the hypothesis forcing modification or a new experiment may be devised that proves the hypothesis to be false.

Natural Law
Natural law is central to science. Natural laws are broad generalisations, essentially descriptions, of the way nature has been repeatedly observed to operate. If a phenomenon depends on supernatural intervention, then it is not relying on natural laws, and it is not explanatory by reference to natural law. (Overton, 1982)

Falsifiability
Another essential characteristic of science is the requirement that a scientific theory be falsifiable, that it be testable and most scientific theories have some trouble with this criterion. Historically based theories such as evolution cannot turn history back so we can view it directly but in that it is no different from many other forms of science ... in fact no one can literally look directly back to any time prior to their own lifetimes so what are we to do? Would critics of science have us assume that everything before our own time is untrue?

Verifiability
Once a hypothesis has been tested through experiment and/or prediction it must be possible for other experimenters to repeat those self-same experiments. That verification may employ the same experimental techniques or different ones but it must be possible.

Tentativeness
Scientists often say there are no facts, that is to say that nothing is "set in stone" in science, although being human, scientists are often reluctant to give up long-standing theories. From this (and verification) it can be seen that science is self-correcting. If a given hypothesis or theory does not fit the available evidence it is modified or it is discarded to be replaced with one that better fits the observations ... it really is that simple.

Scientific laws are generalised descriptions of an ideal or isolated systems behaviour and will seldom, if ever, occur exactly as predicted in the real world because the only truly naturally occurring, isolated system is the universe itself.

Within science many things are not directly observable. No scientist is able to see within the heart of a star or planet, no one has directly observed "black-holes", dinosaurs, gravity or sub-atomic molecules but much data is available concerning these objects and few scientists doubt the validity of such findings. Singularities or "black holes" are not directly visible but scientists searching for explanations of the beginning of our universe hypothesised their existence and the effects that would be caused by such bodies and several such bodies were later identified.

Whilst it may not always be possible to demonstrate how something happened in much of science it is often possible to demonstrate how something could have happened. Having demonstrated how something could happen that hypothesis can be used to predict other events and thus confirm or deny their own validity.

At the root of any theory or scientifically derived conclusion there should be a reasonable interpretation of scientifically derived data that means that data that was acquired non-scientifically can be disqualified. Hypotheses do not necessarily require such supporting evidence because hypotheses are essentially unproven assumptions. Nevertheless hypotheses have significant value in that they can form the framework for further research and may, one day, evolve into theories.

Conclusion
Many individuals are under the mistaken apprehension that to carry out science it is necessary conduct experiments ... this is a vastly over-simplified view. Science requires that a hypothesis or model is formulated and that that is then tested against observations to determine its validity. Experiments are just one method of generating the observations that the validation of a given hypothesis requires. Stars & volcanoes have never been built in laboratories but science nevertheless knows a great deal about such objects.

Claims that science in any way opposes the inspired word of a given religions god or that it is not qualified to investigate a given subject are illogical and irrelevant to science & to rational investigation. Although there is value to be found in the various popular belief systems (religion, myth & fairy tale) that value is largely cultural and of particular interest to those studying similarities between various races.

As for claims that science or theories and disciplines within science are simply religions in themselves, whilst it must be admitted that some individuals do follow science in such a manner, science neither requests nor requires faith in any measure.

References
* "The Talk.Origins Archive Feedback: August 1999", Kenneth Fair
* "The Talk.Origins Archive Feedback: July 1997", John Wilkins
* "Information For All Biologists", Dr. Morden
* "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism", Kitcher (1982)
* National Center for Science Education 1999

Seems to me that your idea of validatable and that of science's are several [billion] miles apart! Same with your ideas of falsifiability

I've already posted a piece I wrote many moons ago which clearly demonstrates the difference between science and creationism and clearly demonstrates that evolution is, in fact, science (this thread, page 2, last but one post).

I'm not typically one to quote authority as any kind of weight of evidence (nor numbers) but I have to ask this ... is the entire scientific community (the cream, I might add, of our academic ability, the technocratic elite, the most highly educated and intelligent & knowledgeable individuals this world has ever know) biased? If so one wonders just how intelligent these people really are because if they have, as your remarks imply, fallen for "the lies of evolution" then they must be a complete bunch of retards, morons & ignorant buffoons. If they are involved in a global scientific conspiracy then they are some of the most deceitful & corrupt individuals known to mankind. If that was so we must not only distrust their various parts in this "conspiracy" but their interpretations of the available evidence and the evidence itself & the methods by which they acquire it.

However, this is not the apparent case is it? The do not appear to be stupid do they? And the whole educational system appears to support that fact. I would further support my case by stating that you & people like you are entirely happy to use their evidence when it suits your purposes to do so (see your acceptance of physics & cosmological explanations) therefore you are also either as stupid or as equally guilty of conspiracy!

However, in actuality, scientists just appear to be ordinary (rather clever) individuals with a vocation for research and it would be difficult indeed to doubt the global integrity of science as a whole.

So, are scientists stupid? Are they lying? If you consider either of these points to be true then I look forward to seeing your supporting evidence of such.

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 10, 2012, 12:42:58 PMAs for "obviously flawed" I do not mean Genesis as a whole. I mean Genesis 1. Also I did not claim it was flawed, only stylized for an ancient audience. The reason why I do not believe in a 6-day creation is basic cosmology. The universe would have needed to expand at an improbable rate and tear itself apart, unless physical laws were created after the universe's matter, which is very improbable.

And again I ask why? You're quoting one branch of science whilst utterly dismissing another ... what methodology are you using to justify this? Why do you dismiss one part of your bible when there are many, arguably equally ludicrous, bits in it that you accept? What form of controls do you use to ensure you are being objective? How do confirm that you are right especially when science decrees that you are wrong (something that has been put to the test in the US courts again & again & again yet ALWAYS the creationists fail) ... exactly why do you think your views are not exactly as laughable as I think they are (that is to say I would think they were laughable if they weren't so damned pathetic and dangerous).

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 01:21:24 PM@'Eylan: I do not believe evolution is *thermodynamically* improbable. Complex creatures often contain even more entropy than simple ones due to their, well, complexity.

I'd say well said except I've already seen some of the stuff you've posted.

Keke
Kekerusey (Not Dead [Undead])
"Keye'ung lu nì'aw tì'eyng mì-kìfkey lekye'ung :)"
Geekanology, UK Atheist &
The "Science, Just Science" Campaign (A Cobweb)

Irtaviš Ačankif

Could you please give me some examples of other "ludicrous" parts of the Bible?

Your huge post completely misunderstood my position. I do *not* believe that there is a big evolutionist conspiracy or that all the top scientists are wrong. Evolution is a very scientific theory and the only problem is that it is extremely difficult to collect data for such theories, leaving any explanation, creationist, evolutionist, or otherwise, quite hard to falsify. I only believe that evolution is improbably based on what I observe. I don't even try to convince people to stop believing in evolution, since I do not even think believing in evolution is mutually exclusive with Christianity.
Previously Ithisa Kīranem, Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng.

Name from my Sakaš conlang, from Sakasul Ältäbisäl Acarankïp

"First name" is Ačankif, not Eltabiš! In Na'vi, Atsankip.

Kekerusey

Ludicrous bible concepts?

* Creation
* Virgin birth
* A sky daddy (Big G his or her self)
* Earth having 4 corners
* The Earth being flat
* Talking snakes (I believe there is somewhere a talking donkey as well)
* Trees of knowledge
* Giants
* A 40 day flood covering every mountain
* Noah's Ark
* Windows in the sky
* The sun stopping in the sky
* People living 900 years (maybe  more)
* The circumference of a circle being 3 times its radius
* * God's word being flawless
* Various organs controlling specific emotional states (including the heart and love).

Those and many contradictions

The following is a paraphrased section from the talk origins website ... it's a wee bit old but I have read it and it says what I would want to say only much better:

Quote from: Talk OriginsMicroevolution can be studied directly. Macroevolution cannot. Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern. Given the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old -- macroevolution could be postulated. But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today. Evidence for macroevolution, or common ancestry and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study. These include: comparative biochemical and genetic studies, comparative developmental biology, patterns of biogeography, comparative morphology and anatomy and the fossil record.

Closely related species (as determined by morphologists) have similar gene sequences. Overall sequence similarity is not the whole story, however. The pattern of differences we see in closely related genomes is worth examining.

All living organisms use DNA as their genetic material, although some viruses use RNA. DNA is composed of strings of nucleotides. There are four different kinds of nucleotides: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T). Genes are sequences of nucleotides that code for proteins. Within a gene, each block of three nucleotides is called a codon. Each codon designates an amino acid (the subunits of proteins).

The three letter code is the same for all organisms (with a few exceptions). There are 64 codons, but only 20 amino acids to code for; so, most amino acids are coded for by several codons. In many cases the first two nucleotides in the codon designate the amino acid. The third position can have any of the four nucleotides and not effect how the code is translated.

A gene, when in use, is transcribed into RNA -- a nucleic acid similar to DNA. (RNA, like DNA, is made up of nucleotides although the nucleotide uracil (U) is used in place of thymine (T).) The RNA transcribed from a gene is called messenger RNA. Messenger RNA is then translated via cellular machinery called ribosome's into a string of amino acids -- a protein. Some proteins function as enzymes, catalysts that speed the chemical reactions in cells. Others are structural or involved in regulating development.

Gene sequences in closely related species are very similar. Often, the same codon specifies a given amino acid in two related species, even though alternate codons could serve functionally as well. But, some differences do exist in gene sequences. Most often, differences are in third codon positions, where changes in the DNA sequence would not disrupt the sequence of the protein.

There are other sites in the genome where nucleotide differences do not affect protein sequences. The genome of eukaryotes is loaded with 'dead genes' called pseudogenes. Pseudogenes are copies of working genes that have been inactivated by mutation. Most pseudogenes do not produce full proteins. They may be transcribed, but not translated. Or, they may be translated, but only a truncated protein is produced. Pseudogenes evolve much faster than their working counterparts. Mutations in them do not get incorporated into proteins, so they have no effect on the fitness of an organism.

Introns are sequences of DNA that interrupt a gene, but do not code for anything. The coding portions of a gene are called exons. Introns are spliced out of the messenger RNA prior to translation, so they do not contribute information needed to make the protein. They are sometimes, however, involved in regulation of the gene. Like pseudogenes, introns (in general) evolve faster than coding portions of a gene.

Nucleotide positions that can be changed without changing the sequence of a protein are called silent sites. Sites where changes result in an amino acid substitution are called replacement sites. Silent sites are expected to be more polymorphic within a population and show more differences between populations. Although both silent and replacement sites receive the same amount of mutations, natural selection only infrequently allows changes at replacement sites. Silent sites, however, are not as constrained.

Kreitman was the first demonstrate that silent sites were more variable than coding sites. Shortly after the methods of DNA sequencing were discovered, he sequenced 11 alleles of the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase (AdH). Of the 43 polymorphic nucleotide sites he found, only one resulted in a change in the amino acid sequence of the protein.

Silent sites may not be entirely selectively neutral. Some DNA sequences are involved with regulation of genes, changes in these sites may be deleterious. Likewise, although several codons code for a single amino acid, an organism may have a preferred codon for each amino acid. This is called codon bias.

If two species shared a recent common ancestor one would expect genetic information, even information such as redundant nucleotides and the position of introns or pseudogenes, to be similar. Both species would have inherited this information from their common ancestor.

The degree of similarity in nucleotide sequence is a function of divergence time. If two populations had recently separated, few differences would have built up between them. If they separated long ago, each population would have evolved numerous differences from their common ancestor (and each other). The degree of similarity would also be a function of silent versus replacement sites. Li and Graur, in their molecular evolution text, give the rates of evolution for silent vs. replacement rates. The rates were estimated from sequence comparisons of 30 genes from humans and rodents, which diverged about 80 million years ago. Silent sites evolved at an average rate of 4.61 nucleotide substitution per 109 years. Replacement sites evolved much slower at an average rate of 0.85 nucleotide substitutions per 109 years.

Groups of related organisms are 'variations on a theme' -- the same set of bones are used to construct all vertebrates. The bones of the human hand grow out of the same tissue as the bones of a bat's wing or a whale's flipper; and, they share many identifying features such as muscle insertion points and ridges. The only difference is that they are scaled differently. Evolutionary biologists say this indicates that all mammals are modified descendants of a common ancestor which had the same set of bones.

Closely related organisms share similar developmental pathways. The differences in development are most evident at the end. As organisms evolve, their developmental pathway gets modified. An alteration near the end of a developmental pathway is less likely to be deleterious than changes in early development. Changes early on may have a cascading effect. Thus most evolutionary changes in development are expected to take place at the periphery of development, or in early aspects of development that have no later repercussions. For a change in early development to be propagated, the benefit of the early alteration must outweigh the consequences to later development.

Natural selection can modify any stage of a life cycle, so some differences are seen in early development. Thus, evolution does not always recapitulate ancestral forms -- butterflies did not evolve from ancestral caterpillars, for example. There are differences in the appearance of early vertebrate embryos. Amphibians rapidly form a ball of cells in early development. Birds, reptiles and mammals form a disk. The shape of the early embryo is a result of different yolk concentrations in the eggs. Birds' and reptiles' eggs are heavily yolked. Their eggs develop similarly to amphibians except the yolk has deformed the shape of the embryo. The ball is stretched out and lying atop the yolk. Mammals have no yolk, but still form a disk early. This is because they have descended from reptiles. Mammals lost their yolky eggs, but retained the early pattern of development. In all these vertebrates, the pattern of cell movements is similar despite superficial differences in appearance. In addition, all types quickly converge upon a primitive, fish-like stage within a few days. From there, development diverges.

Traces of an organism's ancestry sometimes remain even when an organism's development is complete. These are called vestigial structures. Many snakes have rudimentary pelvic bones retained from their walking ancestors. Vestigial does not mean useless, it means the structure is clearly a vestige of an structure inherited from ancestral organisms. Vestigial structures may acquire new functions. In humans, the appendix now houses some immune system cells.

Closely related organisms are usually found in close geographic proximity; this is especially true of organisms with limited dispersal opportunities. The mammalian fauna of Australia is often cited as an example of this; marsupial mammals fill most of the equivalent niches that placentals fill in other ecosystems. If all organisms descended from a common ancestor, species distribution across the planet would be a function of site of origination, potential for dispersal, distribution of suitable habitat, and time since origination. In the case of Australian mammals, their physical separation from sources of placentals means potential niches were filled by a marsupial radiation rather than a placental radiation or invasion.

Natural selection can only mould available genetically based variation. In addition, natural selection provides no mechanism for advance planning. If selection can only tinker with the available genetic variation, we should expect to see examples of jury-rigged design in living species. This is indeed the case. In lizards of the genusCnemodophorus, females reproduce parthenogenetically. Fertility in these lizards is increased when a female mounts another female and simulates copulation. These lizards evolved from sexual lizards whose hormones were aroused by sexual behaviour. Now, although the sexual mode of reproduction has been lost, the means of getting aroused (and hence fertile) has been retained.

Fossils show hard structures of organisms less and less similar to modern organisms in progressively older rocks. In addition, patterns of biogeography apply to fossils as well as extant organisms. When combined with plate tectonics, fossils provide evidence of distributions and dispersals of ancient species. For example, South America had a very distinct marsupial mammalian fauna until the land bridge formed between North and South America. After that marsupials started disappearing and placentals took their place. This is commonly interpreted as the placentals wiping out the marsupials, but this may be an over simplification.

Transitional fossils between groups have been found. One of the most impressive transitional series is the ancient reptile to modern mammal transition. Mammals and reptiles differ in skeletal details, especially in their skulls. Reptilian jaws have four bones. The foremost is called the dentary. In mammals, the dentary bone is the only bone in the lower jaw. The other bones are part of the middle ear. Reptiles have a weak jaw and a mouthful of undifferentiated teeth. Their jaw is closed by three muscles: the external, posterior and internal adductor. Each reptile tooth is single cusped. Mammals have powerful jaws with differentiated teeth. Many of these teeth, such as the molars, are multi-cusped. The temporalis and masseter muscles, derived from the external adductor, close the mammalian jaw. Mammals have a secondary palate, a bony structure separating their nostril passages and throat, so most can swallow and breathe simultaneously. Reptiles lack this.

The evolution of these traits can be seen in a series of fossils.Procynosuchusshows an increase in size of the dentary bone and the beginnings of a palate.Thrinaxodonhas a reduced number of incisors, a precursor to tooth differentiation.Cynognathus(a doglike carnivore) shows a further increase in size of the dentary bone. The other three bones are located inside the back portion of the jaw. Some teeth are multicusped and the teeth fit together tightly.Diademodon(a plant eater) shows a more advanced degree of occlusion (teeth fitting tightly).Probelesodonhas developed a double joint in the jaw. The jaw could hinge off two points with the upper skull. The front hinge was probably the actual hinge while the rear hinge was an alignment guide. The forward movement of a hinge point allowed for the precursor to the modern masseter muscle to anchor further forward in the jaw. This allowed for a more powerful bite. The first true mammal wasMorgonucudon, a rodent-like insectivore from the late Triassic. It had all the traits common to modern mammals. These species were not from a single, unbranched lineage. Each is an example from a group of organisms along the main line of mammalian ancestry.

The strongest evidence for macroevolution comes from the fact that suites of traits in biological entities fall into a nested pattern. For example, plants can be divided into two broad categories, non-vascular (ex. mosses) and vascular. Vascular plants can be divided into seedless (ex. ferns) and seeded. Vascular seeded plants can be divided into gymnosperms (ex. pines) and flowering plants (angiosperms). Angiosperms can be divided into monocots and dicots. Each of these types of plants have several characters that distinguish them from other plants. Traits are not mixed and matched in groups of organisms. For example, flowers are only seen in plants that carry several other characters that distinguish them as angiosperms. This is the expected pattern of common descent. All the species in a group will share traits they inherited from their common ancestor. But, each subgroup will have evolved unique traits of its own. Similarities bind groups together. Differences show how they are subdivided.

The real test of any scientific theory is its ability to generate testable predictions and, of course, have the predictions borne out. Evolution easily meets this criterion. In several of the above examples I stated, closely related organisms share X. If I define closely related as sharing X, this is an empty statement. It does however, provide a prediction. If two organisms share a similar anatomy, one would then predict that their gene sequences would be more similar than a morphologically distinct organism. This has been spectacularly borne out by the recent flood of gene sequences -- the correspondence to trees drawn by morphological data is very high. The discrepancies are never too great and usually confined to cases where the pattern of relationship was debated.</i>

This, of course, is only the briefest overview of the available evidence but it does indicate that there IS evidence (copious evidence actually) for evolution.

Of course the most interesting thing about your question is that you've asked it before (twice) ... and guess what, I've answered it before too (twice) ... and as I recall you never came back to me on it on either occasion so I'll just repost it (for the third time and fully expecting you not reply on it again). I have to admit it's at times like this I just love dealing with idiot creationists like you :-)

<i>Palaeontology is the study of fossils. Fossils are the remains of animals that have evolved. Evolution (see later) may be defined as a change in the genetic or phenotypic constitution of a population over time. Ergo, palaeontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species representing changes through time.

Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species.

Geology is a scientific discipline that shows, amongst other things, that fossils are of different ages and is summarised in what is known as "the geologic column". Palaeontology is a scientific discipline that, despite your criticism (opposed above), DOES show a sequence of fossils that changes over time. Taxonomy is a scientific discipline that, by classifying plants, animals, and microorganisms into increasingly broader categories based on shared features, shows the biological relationships amongst species!

Evolution is not a discipline! It is a major scientific theory that defines the process by which all species develop from pre-existing forms of life and the evidence to support it is based upon geologic, palaeontologic &amp; taxonomic evidence (and a host of evidence drawn from other scientific disciplines). In this sense the theory of evolution permeates the majority of other scientific disciplines and, like many other scientific disciplines (only more so) binds the whole of science into a single cohesive unit much like the interlocking pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

Now the theory of evolution, Eddy, is no more doubted by the scientific community than the theory that the Earth orbits the sun or the theory that if you jump off a tall building you will fall to the ground below somewhat rapidly (and stop even faster). The theory of evolution is no longer doubted by ANY serious scientist in the world and, despite your personal (and, if I may say, seriously stupid) objections to it, no scientist of any repute does any work on whether evolution occurs or not ... instead they work on the mechanisms by which it does so.

Now you may, if you wish, dispute evolution (any idiot, yourself included, can do so) however if you want me, any of the other infidels in this forum or any scientist of repute to take you seriously then you have to provide some reason for us to do so ... to date you have not.

If you want further evidence to support evolution I suggest you go to a major public library. A library of this class BTW is typically a large building with the letters "L I B R A R Y" over its door ... it is not now and never will be located in a building with the words "Christian Crusade Book Shop" (or anything referring to or inferring religion or creationism) on its front. I suggest you go to that library's science section (the librarians I am sure, will be able to help you reach it if you get confused and find yourself in the creationism or religion sections) and, starting with "Anatomy", work your way through the entire list of texts (past "Biochemistry", "Botany", "Chemistry", "Comparative Anatomy", "Developmental Biology", "Geology", "Histology", "Physiology", Plate Tectonics" etc.) until you reach "Zoology". By the end of this you will have gained a reasonable overview of the kind of evidence that supports evolution and you will, no doubt, notice that at no time does any of the recent research that you will read about be attributed definitively to a god or gods! Once you have done so I will be happy to discuss why the hundreds (probably thousands) of lorry loads of written evidence (all based on experimental data) available to support the theory of evolution is far superior both in terms of pure evidence and in terms of philosophy to ANY form of creationism.

As Clarke has already said, abiogenesis has nothing directly to do with the theory of evolution and nothing in the theory of evolution requests or requires abiogenesis to have occurred ... evolution is a biogenetic theory i.e. life from life. That's why some believe that being a theistic evolutionist is a reasonable position to hold.

Keke
Kekerusey (Not Dead [Undead])
"Keye'ung lu nì'aw tì'eyng mì-kìfkey lekye'ung :)"
Geekanology, UK Atheist &
The "Science, Just Science" Campaign (A Cobweb)

Irtaviš Ačankif

Quote from: Kekerusey on December 11, 2012, 02:59:07 PM
Ludicrous bible concepts?

* Creation
* Virgin birth
* A sky daddy (Big G his or her self)
* Earth having 4 corners
* The Earth being flat
* Talking snakes (I believe there is somewhere a talking donkey as well)
* Trees of knowledge
* Giants
* A 40 day flood covering every mountain
* Noah's Ark
* Windows in the sky
* The sun stopping in the sky
* People living 900 years (maybe  more)
* The circumference of a circle being 3 times its radius
* * God's word being flawless
* Various organs controlling specific emotional states (including the heart and love).

* Creation - I think I already explained this
* Virgin birth - God can obviously perform supernatural acts. This, and the miracle itself is not as large as it seems - a simple duplication of a set of chromosomes would work. This is not in itself "ludicrous". Creating the world in 6 days is not either, but is improbable due to cosmology - occam's razor applies. As for virgin birth, I don't see anybody finding fragments of Jesus's DNA.
* A sky daddy (Big G his or her self) - That's your conception. God in the Bible is neither in the sky or a daddy.
* Earth having 4 corners - Literary description found in Psalms etc. Poems and metaphors are not to be taken seriously, and the Bible *very* clearly indicates with use of language what is to be taken literally and what is not.
* The Earth being flat - The Bible, interestingly, never says this. Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22, etc all imply a spherical earth. Flat Earth was actually not a popular belief in ancient Semitic culture - constellations generally imply rotation of the sky around something, which "logically" must be a sphere as well.
* Talking snakes (I believe there is somewhere a talking donkey as well) - Again, this is a special supernatural act.
* Trees of knowledge - Where? The Garden of Eden tree is generally not regarded as a real "tree of knowledge" but simply as something put there to test people.
* Giants - The only giant, Goliath, with his dimensions listed precisely is not as ludicrously huge as you may imagine.
* A 40 day flood covering every mountain - The amount of underground water on the Earth is *far* enough to do this.
* Noah's Ark - What exactly is implausible about this? That a huge boat could exist? Note that there *has* been a recorded genetic bottleneck in chromosome analysis so this is not exactly implausible.
* Windows in the sky - Again, literary analogy. I do not think that *anybody* would take this seriously. It might be an error if it said "The water funneled down into the holes under the clouds and started pouring" because some people do think clouds work this way, but obviously the sky does not have windows, so this would be a clear metaphor even for the ancient Hebrews.
* The sun stopping in the sky - God obviously can do this. The exact mechanism is usually assumed to be some sort of atmospheric refraction, since the Earth has far too much momentum for God to stop without destroying stuff or suspending laws of physics.
* People living 900 years (maybe  more) - Nothing completely implausible about this, unless we can pull out specific ages of people in the entire history of Homo sapiens
* The circumference of a circle being 3 times its radius - Only in a description of a vessel that was clearly an after-the-fact error in measurement.
* * God's word being flawless - Why is this ludicrous? God lives outside our universe and may in fact, as Einstein put it, be something equivalent to the total sum of all physical laws.
* Various organs controlling specific emotional states (including the heart and love).  - Literary and cultural allusions are not meant to be taken literally. Is there any part of the Bible which says "the heart acts out love" or similar when describing the organ "heart"?
Those and many contradictions - Please give examples

The following is a paraphrased section from the talk origins website ... it's a wee bit old but I have read it and it says what I would want to say only much better:
I actually agree with most of it except the last paragraph. "far superior" is not actually a good quantifier for reasons I have already explained. I am not saying that theistic evolutionism is "unreasonable". It is just "less" reasonable from my point of view, or even a "less elegant" way of explaining the world. If you allow God to exist ("theistic" part) the evidence can also be explained as the order God created things.

If God is held to exist, Occam's Razor seems to point that creationism (obviously a quantified version) is more likely to be correct.
Previously Ithisa Kīranem, Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng.

Name from my Sakaš conlang, from Sakasul Ältäbisäl Acarankïp

"First name" is Ačankif, not Eltabiš! In Na'vi, Atsankip.

Clarke

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM
* A 40 day flood covering every mountain - The amount of underground water on the Earth is *far* enough to do this.
It isn't, sorry. I could do the math, if you wanted.
Quote* Noah's Ark - What exactly is implausible about this? That a huge boat could exist? Note that there *has* been a recorded genetic bottleneck in chromosome analysis so this is not exactly implausible.
You're asking, what, exactly is implausible about a 50 kiloton ship (to be generous) carrying millions of animals for 40 days and nights with not only no external food input, but no modern technology more powerful than woodcrafting? And, from there, repopulating the entire planet from single-digit numbers of each species?

Everything.   :-\
Quote* People living 900 years (maybe  more) - Nothing completely implausible about this, unless we can pull out specific ages of people in the entire history of Homo sapiens
What makes you think the mortality rate has ever been lower than it is now? We have rendered ourselves immune to a multitude of diseases and ailments and have medical technology the likes of any other point in history can only dream of, including the ability to outright replace worn out bones, and so forth. We can cure disease, irradiate cancer and other such ailments, and (safely!) surgically remove all sorts of problems, and we live, if we are lucky, until we are 90.

If Adam living until 900 was true, he'd have to be a Time Lord!  :P
QuoteVarious organs controlling specific emotional states (including the heart and love).  - Literary and cultural allusions are not meant to be taken literally. Is there any part of the Bible which says "the heart acts out love" or similar when describing the organ "heart"?
God hardens Pharoah's heart when the Israelites (don't  ::)) leave. Surely it would have made just as much sense to say, "God made Pharaoh stubborn?"

Toruk Makto

Just the admin dropping by here at a totally random point in the discussion... This is a great topic so far and I am enjoying following it. I would reinforce the earlier assertion that mods are not here to throttle the discussion based on personal beliefs or same on the behalf of others. That said, the general rules are in force. So keep it going, but remember to not belittle or berate others on something you don't agree with. And please try to minimize the use of negatively charged or deliberately inflammatory descriptives like "ludicrous".  Thanks, ma oeyä smuk!

Markì

Lì'fyari leNa'vi 'Rrtamì, vay set 'almong a fra'u zera'u ta ngrrpongu
Na'vi Dictionary: http://files.learnnavi.org/dicts/NaviDictionary.pdf

Clarke

Quote from: Toruk Makto on December 11, 2012, 07:00:48 PM
Just the admin dropping by here at a totally random point in the discussion... This is a great topic so far and I am enjoying following it. I would reinforce the earlier assertion that mods are not here to throttle the discussion based on personal beliefs or same on the behalf of others. That said, the general rules are in force. So keep it going, but remember to not belittle or berate others on something you don't agree with. And please try to minimize the use of negatively charged or deliberately inflammatory descriptives like "ludicrous".  Thanks, ma oeyä smuk!

Markì
I hope you weren't talking about my use of the word "ludicrous" earlier, since I was being almost literal.  :D

Kekerusey

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PMBlah ...

You explained creation? Where?

I'm at work right now so cannot answer fully but I will.

In the meantime, your rejection of evolution and acceptance of physics seem to me (as I've already siad) to be rather at odds with each other ... watch this short video featuring Neil deGrasse Tyson as a few things he says bear rather strongly on the idea that you implicitly seem to be advancing (that we are not evolved, we are created and, in some fashion, special):

Does the Universe Have a Purpose? feat. Neil deGrasse Tyson

Keke
Kekerusey (Not Dead [Undead])
"Keye'ung lu nì'aw tì'eyng mì-kìfkey lekye'ung :)"
Geekanology, UK Atheist &
The "Science, Just Science" Campaign (A Cobweb)

Kekerusey

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* Creation - I think I already explained this

Where? You mean your rubbish about there being evidence about the universe being younger based on C-14 dating? The C14 dating method, BTW, that is not claimed by any knowledgeable scientist to be accurate much beyond 50,000 years? Did you really try to use that to justify the age of an Earth/Universe that is understood to be multiple billions of years old?

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* Virgin birth - God can obviously perform supernatural acts. This, and the miracle itself is not as large as it seems - a simple duplication of a set of chromosomes would work. This is not in itself "ludicrous". Creating the world in 6 days is not either, but is improbable due to cosmology - occam's razor applies. As for virgin birth, I don't see anybody finding fragments of Jesus's DNA.

Non sequitur ... we're effectively arguing the existence of your god so you cannot simply claim he performed some magic trick.

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* A sky daddy (Big G his or her self) - That's your conception. God in the Bible is neither in the sky or a daddy.

You ever read the old testament? Everything about that god is styled as some kind of uber chieftain style deity which is exactly the kind of god a technological people would dream up.

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* Earth having 4 corners - Literary description found in Psalms etc. Poems and metaphors are not to be taken seriously, and the Bible *very* clearly indicates with use of language what is to be taken literally and what is not.

Again a non-sequitur since I have already challenged you about what is obvious and what is not ... given that you believe in a book that is apparently based on fairy tale mythology, given that the only reasonable positions that can be rationally fathomed are that you either believe the bible is right (it is true, in toto, the scientific method is completely wrong) or not (science is right), all, of course, notwithstanding the fact that other religions must also be wrong (they also claim correctness) means you need to justify why it is some is true and some is not.

In effect, given the fact that science is so universally accepted by our best minds (including the theory of evolution), given that it is you & your ilk that are making the extraordinary claim it is therefore YOU and your ilk that have to justify that claim and not the other way round. IOW, there is no "obviously" when it comes to the biblical scripture.

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* The Earth being flat - The Bible, interestingly, never says this. Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22, etc all imply a spherical earth. Flat Earth was actually not a popular belief in ancient Semitic culture - constellations generally imply rotation of the sky around something, which "logically" must be a sphere as well.

I agree it never states it directly but it does state it has 4 corners (Revelation 7:1) clearly indicating a non-spherical Earth and in Matthew 4:8 the Devil takes Jesus to the top of a very high mountain so that show him all the kingdoms in their glory, heavily implying a flat-Earth. This falls more closely in line with what the other religions of the time believed the Earth to a flat circular world with edges (no idea where they came up with the corners from).

The claim that the bible predicts (even states the world is a sphere is fairly daft too ... for a start, as you've already admitted, the bible says the "circle of the earth" it doesn't say the Earth is a sphere (and of course the truth is it is actually an oblate spheroid).

In essence all of this indicates that the bible actually reflects how the technologically ignorant people of that time saw the Earth. 

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* Talking snakes (I believe there is somewhere a talking donkey as well) - Again, this is a special supernatural act.

And again you can't expect that to be valid in a debate such as this ... indeed it's quite laughable that you do seem to expect just that!

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* Trees of knowledge - Where? The Garden of Eden tree is generally not regarded as a real "tree of knowledge" but simply as something put there to test people.

Your god says otherwise (Genesis 2:17).

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* Giants - The only giant, Goliath, with his dimensions listed precisely is not as ludicrously huge as you may imagine.

10 foot is pretty damned big (though 1st century historian Josephus reckons him to be smaller) and the bible also mentions Gog and Magog (Nephilim).

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* A 40 day flood covering every mountain - The amount of underground water on the Earth is *far* enough to do this.

No, it's not ... it requires over 1 billion cubic miles of water and there is only a third of that available on the Earth. Care to try again?


Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* Noah's Ark - What exactly is implausible about this? That a huge boat could exist? Note that there *has* been a recorded genetic bottleneck in chromosome analysis so this is not exactly implausible.

Er yes it is ... see this here from my one time good friend Gallo:

No Answers In Genesis: That Boat Don't Float

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* Windows in the sky - Again, literary analogy. I do not think that *anybody* would take this seriously. It might be an error if it said "The water funneled down into the holes under the clouds and started pouring" because some people do think clouds work this way, but obviously the sky does not have windows, so this would be a clear metaphor even for the ancient Hebrews.

And again you can't expect that to be valid in a debate such as this ... for reasons already given!

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* The sun stopping in the sky - God obviously can do this. The exact mechanism is usually assumed to be some sort of atmospheric refraction, since the Earth has far too much momentum for God to stop without destroying stuff or suspending laws of physics.

Yawn, no such thing as "obvious" in this context!

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* People living 900 years (maybe  more) - Nothing completely implausible about this, unless we can pull out specific ages of people in the entire history of Homo sapiens

Yes there is ... it's far longer than ANY human being has ever lived. Moreover people tended to live much, much shorter lives in past times because we have better diet and better medical technology today. Again YOU (as you seem to be so fond of doing) are making the extraordinary claim therefore YOU must demonstrate validatable evidence to support it.

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* The circumference of a circle being 3 times its radius - Only in a description of a vessel that was clearly an after-the-fact error in measurement.

In something that's supposed to be the divine word of your god or otherwise divinely inspired ... is your god that useless? That pathetic? Quite frankly, even if your god was real, I wouldn't want to live in a world created by such an ignoramus ... mind you, the available evidence indicates he/she/it is/was a crap designer anyway, ROFL.

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* God's word being flawless - Why is this ludicrous? God lives outside our universe and may in fact, as Einstein put it, be something equivalent to the total sum of all physical laws.

And Einstein (who didn't believe in a personal god) was almost certainly waxing poetical. You're claiming that from a man who had to state directly that he didn't believe in a personal god because theists kept (keep on to this day) spreading out-of-context rumours (in effect lies) about him being a believer.

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PM* Various organs controlling specific emotional states (including the heart and love).  - Literary and cultural allusions are not meant to be taken literally. Is there any part of the Bible which says "the heart acts out love" or similar when describing the organ "heart"?

There's no easy way to do this so I'll turn to my one time good friend and anti-creationist debater, Psycho Dave:

Quote from: Psycho DaveThe Bible gets an "F" in basic anatomy
(Thinking with your bowels)


Some of the most outlandish lessons in anatomy and physiology are contained in the Bible. We are told that bats are birds, that there are insects that have only 4 legs, and that rabbits chew their cud. Well, let's take a look at what the Bible says about human anatomy.

The Bible has been a chief inspiration throughout history of various ideas, one being that emotions are centred in the heart. It is easy to understand how PRIMITIVE, SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE people could believe such crap. After all, when we are sexually aroused or excited, our hearts beat quicker. So primitive people thought there was something in the heart that made us feel emotions. This view is held throughout the Bible and even up to the modern times, as references to the heart being the centre of emotion permeates our literature and poetry.

The people who wrote the Bible attached enormous emotional and moral significance to the heart's behaviour. The Bible emphasizes how the heart "deviseth a man's way," "inspires speech" "believes," "is joyful," "is deceitful," "is good" (Prov. 16:9 ; Mt. 12: 34 ; Rom. 10:10 ; 1 Chron. 16:10 ; Jer. 17:9 ; Lk. 6:45 ). This resembles what the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, and Greeks (those Greeks who were not physicians, Homer and Aristotle) believed and taught. Besides the heart, the Bible also focuses (to a lesser extent) on the emotional and moral significance of the bowels and kidneys. Here are some of the verses in the King James Bible in which the Greek and Hebrew terms for bowels and kidneys are literally translated:

* My bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the Lord (Jer. 31:20).
* Be ye straitened [restrained] in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12).
* I long after you in the bowels [affection] of Christ (Philip. 1:8 ).
* (T)he bowels of the saints are refreshed.... (R)efresh my bowels in the Lord (Philemon 7:20).
* (S)hutteth up his bowels of compassion (1 John 3:17).
* Thus my heart was grieved, and I was pricked in my reins [Latin, renes, which means kidneys, a literal translation of the Hebrew] (Ps. 73:21).
* My reins [kidneys] also instruct me in the night seasons (Ps. 16:7).
* Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the heart and reins [kidneys] (Ps. 7:9).
* Yea, my reins [kidneys] shall rejoice when my lips speak right things (Prov. 23:16).
* I am He [God] which searcheth the reins [kidneys] and hearts (Rev. 2:23).

The Talmud (Berakhoth 61a) says that one kidney prompts man to do good, the other to do evil. The kidneys (among other organs, yet excluding the brain) were especially reserved for Yahweh and sacrificed to Him as a burnt offering (Lev. 3:4-5). Even if the Hebrews regarded this insight into the kidneys as "pure poetry" (which is doubtful, based on historical comparisons, and since figures of speech have to originate from ideas), it is a poetry that no longer survives or interests mankind. In fact, in the above verses the Hebrew word for kidneys has been translated soul in modern English Bibles to avoid cumbersome explanations of why the ancient Hebrews attributed moral significance to a person's kidneys.

Another anatomical mistake was made by the Leviticus writer in the same context with his four-footed insects. After stating the two characteristics that clean animals must have (part the hoof and chew the cud), he declared hares and coneys unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof (vv:3-6). Deuteronomy 14:7 also described hares and coneys as cud-chewers. The biological facts, however,are these: hares and coneys have no hoofs to part, but they have no cuds to chew either. The Leviticus writer made a serious biological error in describing them as cud-chewers.

The Genesis writer's genetic knowledge was no better than his understanding of astronomy. In chapter 30, he told of Jacob's scheme to increase his wealth while he was still in the employ of his father-in-law Laban. The two had reached an agreement whereby Jacob would be given all striped, spotted, and speckled lambs and kids subsequently born in Laban's flocks. Laban then removed all the striped, spotted, and speckled animals from his flocks and put them in his sons' care at a three-day distance from the flock Jacob attended. Not to be outsmarted, Jacob devised a plan:

Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the rods, and so the flocks produced young that were striped, speckled, and spotted (30:37-39, NRSV).

What an interesting idea. And we thought all this time that passing inherited genes was how you bred traits into animals. Imagine how much simpler it is! All we have to do to breed pure white animals is place a wall of white poplar in front of their feeding places.

The fact is that the writers of the Bible knew little about anatomy or any other aspect of biology, and the idea that the heart, kidneys, and intestines had anything to do with emotion, or thought is simply idiotic. If the Bible were a source of truth, and it were infallible, don't you think that it could have at least made one connection between the brain and thought. It never does!

So much for the wisdom of the ancients.

Footnote (by the Reverend Rob Miles)

The Hebrew Lexicon has this to say about the word translated as "hare":

0768 tbnra 'arnebeth ar-neh'-beth
of uncertain derivation; TWOT-123a; n f
AV-hare 2; 2
1) hare
1a) probably an extinct animal because no known hare chews its cud, exact meaning is unknown, and best left untranslated as "arnebeth"


There's no problem so great in the Bible that the inerrantist won't cook up some preposterous scenario to explain it. Of course the Bible can't be inerrant, so therefore the author of Leviticus could not have been referring to a hare at all. It must be some extinct animal.

Easton's Revised Bible Dictionary, on the other hand, disagrees:

Hare (Heb. 'arnebeth) was prohibited as food according to the Mosaic law (#Le 11:6 De 14:7) "because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof." The habit of this animal is to grind its teeth and move its jaw as if it actually chewed the cud. But, like the cony (q.v.), it is not a ruminant with four stomachs, but a rodent like the squirrel, rat, etc. Moses speaks of it according to appearance. It is interdicted because, though apparently chewing the cud, it did not divide the hoof. There are two species in Syria,
1. The Lepus Syriacus or Syrian hare, which is like the English hare.
2. The Lepus Sinaiticus, or hare of the desert. No rabbits are found in Syria.

So, on the one hand we have an apologist work that claims arnebeth must not have been a hare, and is probably an extinct animal. We have another apologist work that tries to get Moses off the hook by claiming that the animal (no denial that it's a hare) appears to be chewing the cud, so his error is excusable.

Well, I suppose if the hare can fool Yahweh, who supposedly inspired Moses to write the Law, we can't really blame Moses for being fooled, can we? Those wascally wabbits!

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PMI actually agree with most of it except the last paragraph. "far superior" is not actually a good quantifier for reasons I have already explained. I am not saying that theistic evolutionism is "unreasonable". It is just "less" reasonable from my point of view, or even a "less elegant" way of explaining the world. If you allow God to exist ("theistic" part) the evidence can also be explained as the order God created things.

You mean that science is a rigorous methodology that has been repeatedly demonstrated to work, to provide us with our best current understanding of the universe in which we live? That Darwin's Theory of Evolution is so supported by evidence that no serious scientist works any longer on whether evolution occurs but instead concentrates on the methods by which it proceeds? That the Theory of Evolution is no more doubted by the scientific community than is the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun or the theory that objects fall to the ground when dropped from high buildings. You want me to accept your creationist version of events over all the evidence that science can supply, with a rubbish idea that I wouldn't even dignify by calling it a theory over? Is this another of your "obvious" ones? Indeed I am left wondering at this point why it is you actually support the theory of gravity rather than the satirical "Theory of Intelligent Falling (The Onion)"?

Why the hell would I "allow" your god to exist in a rational universe when the existence of such an entity makes absolutely no sense whatsoever? Yes I can entertain the concept philosophically but if I were to actually allow for it as an explanation science would be utterly screwed because any time (any time at all) anyone wanted to explain something they could claim, "god done it" and no one could ever say that was wrong no matter how stupid the reason was that that explanation was provided.

Do you not understand how allowing deity as a valid explanation completely and utterly destroys science as a valid philosophy?

Quote from: Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng on December 11, 2012, 04:20:12 PMIf God is held to exist, Occam's Razor seems to point that creationism (obviously a quantified version) is more likely to be correct.

Rubbish! A universe with a god in it is inherently less explicable, less logical and less rational than one without!

Keke
Kekerusey (Not Dead [Undead])
"Keye'ung lu nì'aw tì'eyng mì-kìfkey lekye'ung :)"
Geekanology, UK Atheist &
The "Science, Just Science" Campaign (A Cobweb)