Darwin and Evolution
82DARWINS THEORY OF EVOLUTION
If by evolution you mean "change over time" within a species then sure, evolution exists. If by evolution you mean living species become other species—Darwinism—then evolution is false.
Millions of high school textbooks still include illustrations of Haeckel's Embryos, even though they are fake and have been known to be fake for decades. The reason they are still in textbooks is that Darwinist use them as evidence for the Theory of Evolution.
The main point of Darwinism is that all species descended from other species. Why then, has no human being, in thousands of years, ever seen any evidence of this? Even scientists now know that most species we see on Earth appeared spontaneously in the "Cambrian Explosion. "
Darwin wrongly assumed that since microevolution is observable—changes within a species as it adapts to changing environs—that macroevolution must be happening—one species changing into another.
There is zero evidence that Darwin was correct, after 150 years of steady investigation. Not even simple bacteria change species. But species changing into other species is taught to your children as scientific fact.
ORIGIN OF MAN
Biology textbooks teach your children that it is a fact they are descended from apes, without a speck of proof provided. Textbooks include supposed evidence to support Darwinism that has been long discredited, but not removed. Some school districts fight back against this nonsense.
In 2002, Cobb County, Georgia, approved this sticker for science textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
That sounds reasonable enough to me. But not to Atheists. The ACLU, of course, filed suit and won! A federal judge, believe or not, ruled that this sticker violated the First Amendment—that is, constituted the United States Congress establishing a state religion.
The college textbook Evolution says this: "Evolution is a scientific fact. That is, the descent of all species, with modification, from common ancestors is a hypothesis that in the last 150 years or so has been supported by so much evidence, and has so successfully resisted all challenges, that it has become fact." I am telling you folks: that is a lie. Darwinism is not supported by any evidence.
DARWINISM
According to the series Evolution on Public Broadcasting Television, paid for with taxpayer dollars, Darwin was shut out of American schools from 1925 to 1957—from the Scopes Monkey Trial to Sputnik. Then "long neglected science programs were revived in America's classrooms."
If America suffered from a lack of Darwin you wouldn't know it from the fact that America produced more Nobel Prize winners than the rest of the world combined from 1925-1957; and more than twice as many as the rest of the world combined in physiology and medicine.
Atheists can't believe Darwinism is even a subject of debate, in spite of holes in the Theory of Evolution large enough to drive a truck through.
Atheists claim that Darwinism is the foundation of modern biology. That is false. The fact is, molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology ignore Darwin's theory altogether. None of the major biological breakthroughs of the 20th century derived any benefit or advancement because of the Theory of Evolution. But advocates of evolution try to take credit for all the advances in science, which is intellectual larceny.
ORIGIN OF LIFE
Since there is no evidence for Darwinism, Atheists fall back on scientific consensus. The American Association of University Professors, founded by Atheists, says: "The Theory of Evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars." But 761 Ph.D. scientists have signed the Dissent from Darwinism statement.
The American people overwhelmingly reject Darwinism, despite its monopoly on the classroom for decades. The response by Atheists is to state that the American People are scientifically illiterate. But America is the most scientifically successful country in history.
Atheists will defend Darwin to the death because Darwinism must be true for Divine Creation to be false. The revered Atheist Carl Sagan explained the preposterousness of this: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs . . . because we have made a prior commitment to materialism." Materialism: the belief that nothing exists except matter.
Now it becomes clear. By starting with the belief that nothing exists except matter, we must believe in Darwinism, in spite of no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence against it. As one famous geneticist explained, "We cannot allow a divine foot in the door."
The fact is that Darwin's predictions about what science would uncover regarding the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular biology, have been proven false. Nothing about Darwinism can be proven through observation or experimentation—the supposed bedrocks of science.
As Ernst Chain, discoverer of penicillin, Nobel Prize winner, and a man who contributed more to mankind than perhaps any other person in the last 100 years said in 1972: "The Darwin theory of evolution . . . is based on such flimsy assumptions . . . that it can hardly be called a theory. . . . I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation."
ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH
Darwinism is taught to children in public schools as proven fact about the origin of life on Earth. It is an Atheistic world view that teaches all life evolved from a soup of chemicals.
Charles Darwin said, "I hope I did a good job of destroying God." It is not designed to find truth, but to disprove God exists.
Because children are indoctrinated into Darwinism, 40 percent of Americans today believe in both God and Darwin; 10 percent believe only in Darwin; 50 percent believe God created the world without evolution. According to Darwinism man has no soul, he is not a spiritual being, because apes are not spiritual beings.
Darwinism is not supported by scientific evidence. It is only taught to our children because it supports Atheism. A Godless universe is a universe without meaning. Darwin claimed that elemental atoms became living cells in a flash, all by themselves, from a warm little pond. But we know that living things only come from living things.
Darwinism claims that this first living cell slowly mutated into all of the life we see on Earth today. But we have billions of fossils and nary a one shows any species mutating into a different species. If species do not mutate into other species—a reptile into a rat, a fish into a bird, an ape into a human being—then Darwinism is false.
Why then do science textbooks, public school teachers, and science programs on television—many produced with taxpayer dollars—teach us that Darwinism is proven fact?
A strong majority of Americans want the theory of evolution taught along with the Genesis account of Creation in public schools, so children can think through it and decide for themselves what to believe. 90 percent of Americans believe God was involved in the Creation of the universe, but Darwinist describe them as an extreme minority who want to foist their religious beliefs on children.
DNA
DNA contains intelligent information. Intelligent information must come from somewhere. No Darwinists can explain away this truth. But try they do. The official position of the National Association of Biology Teachers is: "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution." This is how Darwin sought to eliminate belief in God.
As the prominent Atheist Richard Dawkins writes: "The whole point of the theory of evolution was to provide an non-miraculous account of the existence of life."
The maniacal support of Darwinism comes from Atheists. They have made the teaching of Darwinism politically correct.
Darwin was in fact both racist and sexist.
DNA can be likened to computer software, though far more advanced than anything human beings have ever dreamed up. Software always has a designer behind it.
We have learned from DNA that the key to life is not in atoms and molecules, but in information. Informational sequences can only be created by intelligence—it cannot and does not occur naturally. The message in the DNA transcends the material medium.
DNA carries complex specific instructions. It has all the hallmarks of intelligent design. There is no other plausible explanation for DNA.
Darwinists reject this idea because to admit that there could be intelligent design admits the idea that there could be a Creator God. No matter what the evidence is, Atheists cannot allow any discussion of this possibility. So, they refuse to allow any idea opposed to Darwinism to be published in peer-reviewed science journals; then claim intelligent design is not science because it is not in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Catch 22.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Every living machine on earth appears to be designed. We study their designs. To Darwinists, this apparent design is an illusion. The reason is that design implies a designer of transcendent intelligence—a Creator God.
Human beings are incredibly creative. It is no wonder why if we are made in the Image of a God who can create a universe such as we live in.
Charles Darwin was completely ignorant about the inner workings of the cell. We know now that living cells are highly efficient microscopic machines and precisely integrated biochemical systems.
Darwin wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
We now know of living creatures, such as flagella, that are indeed irreducibly complex—that do not function unless all of its parts are present.
Atheists take two tracks of attack against intelligent design. They claim both that it can't be tested, and that it has been tested and proven false.
Today, some biology textbooks do mention intelligent design but only to misrepresent it and deprecate it as pseudoscience or phony science. Even the beloved Wikipedia calls the possibility that the universe is designed rather than purely an accident a phony science.
Some professors use a trumped up version of intelligent design with the stated aim of "converting Christian students to Atheism." That is your tax dollars—and tuition dollars—at work.
Darwinists are condescending and mean-spirited. As William Rusher writes: "One can't help being a little surprised at the sheer savagery of the evolutionists' attack on Intelligent Design. One thinks of scientists as calm, intelligent people, perhaps wearing white smocks, who take on questions to which we don't know the answers, think about them carefully, and test various explanations experimentally until they come up with one that solves the problem. But that hasn't been the reaction of evolutionists to Intelligent Design at all. They have all but bitten themselves in two to drive it straight out of the realm of serious discussion."
ACADEMIC FREEDOM
When college professors say the most outrageous things, they are immediately defended on the grounds of academic freedom.
This concept means—according to the American Association of University Professors— that "Freedom of faculty members to express views, however unpopular or distasteful, is an essential condition of an institution of higher learning that is truly free." The AAUP use this concept to defend Ward Churchill, for one example, when he said the victims of 9-11 were "little Eichmanns."
Academic freedom has one exception: you cannot stray from the Darwinist Creed. Universities prohibit the expression of "views that differ from evolution" in science courses. The director of the AAUP agrees because, in regard to views opposed to Darwinism, "Academic freedom is not a license to teach anything you like."
Plenty of scientists have reached the conclusion that the universe, earth, man, and all living creatures bear the marks of intelligent design. Every one of them is pilloried with insults and ridicule by the Atheists in charge of the scientific community with a level of hostility and vitriol usually reserved for child molesters or mass murderers.
But intelligent design has not been refuted by any evidence. There are Atheist scientists who agree with intelligent design—but attribute it not to a Creator God but to aliens from outer space.
Academic freedom is only for Atheists. If word gets out that a scientist is a Christian, all of his subsequent research is viewed suspiciously. After all, he must have an agenda. But do Atheists have an agenda?
Prominent Atheist and proud Moral Nihilist William Provine can explain his attachment to Darwinism. He calls it a "the greatest engine of Atheism ever invented." This is interesting because the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that Atheism is a religion.
What is a religion? A set of beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheism and Darwinism certainly qualify.
ATHEISM PROMOTED IN THE CLASSROOM
Atheists will most certainly lie through their teeth to protect their monopoly on the classroom.
In the famous 1999 Kansas case, the state Board of Education was pressured by Atheists to teach students that all life comes from macroevolution, from a common ancestor, from natural causes, life simply appeared out of nowhere—which is simply not true. In response, the school board refused.
The Atheists lied to the press that the School Board had decided not to teach evolution anymore, and was going to mandate the teaching of the Genesis Creation story, which they knew to be a complete and total lie. In the ensuing uproar one news commentator said the "Taliban" had taken over Kansas schools.
In 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education stated that evolutionary theory should be critically analyzed by students. That's all.
One newspaper wrote that the only people who would possible favor a critical analysis of evolutionary theory were "know-nothing fanatics intent on twisting science to accommodate their pet biblical phrases." Another said "State OKs curriculum involving Creationism." Another said "knuckle dragging ignoramuses were waging a jihad against real science."
Paul Myers, a professor at the university of Minnesota, said this about anyone who opposes Darwinism: "The only appropriate response should involved some form of righteous fury, much butt kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy right-wing politicians. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots."
The Dover, Pennsylvania case takes the cake. The school board there decided that the one week course on Darwinism should include five minutes to discuss intelligent design. Their statement said "Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence." That last sentence is absolutely true.
The ACLU filed suit against the school board. A federal judge prohibited the school from teaching anything but the false theory that is Darwinism. The implication is that to question Darwinism is unconstitutional. No open inquiry is allowed.
THE WAR ON RELIGION
Before Charles Darwin, nearly every famous scientists in the world was also a Christian. Science and Faith were not at all at odds. It was Darwinism that declared war on God; not the other way around.
33 percent of the people in the world are Christians; 21 percent are Muslim; 14 percent are Hindu. Darwinism is designed to destroy the faith of them all, on behalf of the 2 percent of the people in the world who are Atheists.
It intends to accomplish this by rejecting God. Since Christianity is the dominate religion of Western Civilization, it is the focus of the hate projected by Atheists.
Richard Dawkins calls the Christian Faith "one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus." There is no conflict whatsoever between religion and science. There is a major conflict between Darwinism and Christianity.
Darwinism was central to the Atheistic world view of Soviet Russia.
Billions of dollars in taxpayer funds are used each year to promote the false god of Darwinism.
DARWINISM
Atheists make all kinds of wild claims. One prominent Atheist politician said recently than any opposition to Darwinism threatens "hundreds of years of scientific discovery." Really?
Pray tell, exactly what scientific discovery is linked to Darwinism? Who threatens hundreds of years of scientific discoveries? "People who simply disregard the facts."
What facts? That life was born spontaneously in a primordial soup all by itself, naturally, and that all life since came from that soup. Is that a fact? Where is your evidence?
The response to a demand for evidence is met with: "It boggles the mind that in this country we still debate evolution, ignoring science and common sense."
The facts Atheists most want your children to understand is that there is no God; you have no soul; you are not a spiritual being.
According to Darwinism, we are merely animals. Should we not then be treated as such? This led to the eugenics movement, which led to forced sterilization, abortion, and infanticide.
Evidence of intelligent design is not based on faith, but it has implications for faith.
DARWIN AND EVOLUTION
The Darwinian idea of progress spawned the Progressive Political Movement, based on the idea that man is still evolving.
I recently watched the wonderful series on the Discovery Channel entitled "Life." Millions of children were watching. It was all great until the last episode on apes and monkeys. Narrator Oprah Winfrey went on and on about how these animals were our close relatives and after a while, she started referring to them as "we."
As Darwinism falls apart, expect Atheists to become increasingly nasty about its demise. As author Orson Scott Card says, their reactions are "illogical, personal, and unscientific" as they resort to "credentialism" and "expertism." Card notes: "Real science never has to resort to credentialism. If someone with no credentials at all raises a legitimate question, it is not an answer to point out how uneducated or unqualified the questioner is. In fact, it is pretty much an admission that you don't have an answer, so you want the questioner to go away. It's the 'trust us you fools' defense. Essentially, Darwinists tell the general public that we're too dumb to understand."
Is there a spiritual force animating this hoax that is Darwinism? Is evil a presence or an absence? If there is a Satan—and I believe there is—he is the Deceiver of Mankind, and the Father of Lies.
"The purpose of man is like the purpose of a pollywog - to wiggle along as far as he can without dying" Clarence Darrow
"Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
"The Fool says in his heart 'There is no God'" Psalm 14:1
My sources include: And God Created Darwin: The Death of Darwinian Evolution by Duane Arthur Schmidt; and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Other articles that may interest you:
Human Beings: What and Who are they?
The process and consequences of Aging
Did you know the Earth is alive?
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (26)
- Funny (3)
- Awesome (29)
- Beautiful (11)
- Interesting
CommentsLoading...
@James A Watkins: "Reasonable Faith," by William Lane Craig. It isn't taking as long I had feared.
Interesting book, if you haven't read it.
Chasuk— Well, good luck with your project. What book is it?
@James A Watkins: Because I have a larger project -- the refutation of an entire book of Christian apologetics -- and I don't know how long it will take. That, and I have non-HubPages related projects that take equal priority.
Chasuk— Thank you for the notification about your new Hub. I have made myself a note to come over and read it soon.
Why your last Hub for a while?
@James A Watkins: This is the last hub I'll be writing for a while, but I thought I'd point it out as it is largely a rebuttal of this hub.
I want to say that there is nothing personal in my rebuttal. I disagree with you emphatically on most points. I only rebut what is artfully presented. If I didn't think that your hubs had the power to convince, then I wouldn't be concerned at providing an alternative viewpoint.
moneycop— Thank you very much for coming by to read my article. I appreciate your interesting comments. I am well pleased to receive your compliments.
A LABORIOUS JOB DEAR...I LIKE THE DEPTH U CAN GO..BUT WE SHOULD THINK THE POSSIBILITY OF ITS HAPPENING IN PRENT ALSO
Trish_M— And you shall have them. :D
I should be most interested in your thoughts, James :)
Trish_M-- I'm working on one more Hub and then I'll spend a day reading the work of my fellow Hubbers.
You'll be very welcome :)
Trish_M-- I'll come over and see what you've been writing. :-)
Absolutely :) :)
Trish_M-- Alright-I guess there are no saints in the room.
Well, I have enjoyed our debates. Now get to that family tree. It should be interesting by the time you get back to the first cell in the primordial soup that miraculously came to life all by itself. And to think, that one little accident caused all this-including this conversation. :-)
I am not a saint; I am an ordinary person, who has a different viewpoint from yours, James :)
I don't think that I am a lesser person than I would be if I wasn't descended from apes ~ as, I think, we all are.
I am not a 'scientist', but, to the best of my knowledge, we are all descended from apes ~ and other organisms. too! I have no problem with that.
I have had a very good education, I am considered to be reasonably intelligent ~ and it makes sense to me :)
Why it does not make sense to others, I do not know.
I am working on my family tree and I would be quite happy to add the evolutionary tree ~ with all of the plants and animals, including our ancestral apes ~ to my own personal chart. No problem :)
Trish_M— Technically, you are correct of course. Individuals such as yourself maybe saints without God. But a group of millions of people are far more moral with God.
Of course, there have been, are, and will be Christians who do bad things. Coming to the faith does not make one perfect by any means.
I am surprised that you, apparently with a straight face, can say that a random accident mutated from an ape is not a lesser person that a human being created by a loving God as an individual with purpose and meaning and life everlasting.
I have said, many times, that one does not require a religion, or a belief in God, in order to have moral standards. I know that a lot of Christians disagree with this, but I disagree with them ~ very strongly. I believe that this is a myth and a dangerous one.
I also see plenty of behaviour on the part of Christians, past and present ~ and in the Bible ~ that I consider immoral, or even highly immoral.
I believe in having high moral standards and I also believe that there are apes in my family tree. I do not think that ape ancestry makes me a lesser person ~ or less likely to behave in a decent manner.
Trish_M— As your great Dr Johnson said so well:
"We not only do what we approve, but there is danger lest in time we come to approve what we do, though for no other reason but that we do it. A man is always desirous of being at peace with himself; and when he cannot reconcile his passions to his conscience, he will attempt to reconcile his conscience to his passions; he will find reason for doing what he is resolved to do."
Trish_M— It is not necessarily that people reject God and sink into a life of debauchery, luridness, and licentiousness. Many times the sinful habits come first and then God is rejected since His laws condemn the willful sinner. Deny God; reject the wrongness of one's personal actions. The idea that human beings are nothing more than animals here by random chance rather than created by God for a purpose is an enabling idea for the addiction to sin. It is the overarching enabling idea behind moral relativism. After all, if there is no God and people are mere apes higher evolved then all moral rules are social constructs and nothing is really wrong. The only right or wrong becomes a matter of opinion, of which all opinions are equally valid. No doubt this is powerfully attractive. Lenin, Hitler Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot all found it so.
If taxes support all kinds of schools in Britain then that is what I would like to see here. Then if you want Atheism, Darwinism, and Socialism—natural bedfellows—pounded into your child's head you have that free choice. If you don't then you don't have to pay taxes for ideas you abhor.
I am all for scientific discovery and teaching about them. Finding some old bones is one thing. Teaching that the old bones mean God doesn't exist is another. One you can see and touch. The other requires faith. But the power of the state authority applied through state schools is an awesome power. Every socialist knows this quite well.
You touch on an important point which is that the official Atheism of the public schools—under the nom de guerre of "Secular Humanism"—creates more Christian fundamentalism as a reaction than there would be otherwise.
There is no reason why religion should merely be "a private matter." People wildly proclaim and wave banners of their favorite soccer team, what makes one's religious beliefs less proclaimable than that?
The fact is one's religious beliefs or lack thereof frames the worldview of all people and thus affects every aspect of their lives, thoughts, ideas, and actions both public and private. This secular humanist idea that of all the parts of a person's life only their view of God should remain private is a great strategy. Meanwhile they shout their sexual proclivities from the rooftops as the paramount identity markers.
Hello James
Maybe you have come across different situations from the ones that I have experienced, but I have never known anyone to feel free to 'sin', just because they accept evolutionary theory.
And, actually, here in the UK, our taxes do fund some faith schools. Some are private, but there are plenty of others ~ Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, etc ~ over here, which are state schools. I used to work in a Roman Catholic state school, for example.
Just because a school teaches about scientific discoveries, doesn't make it atheist. Just because it doesn't teach that the Bible is true, doesn't make it atheist. It just means that it is keeping church and state separate, which is, I understand, the law in the USA??
The weird thing is that, over here, religion and state are not separate, yet we don't have all the fundamentalism that you have over there. I enjoy discussing religion, but most people, here, don't talk about it much. A lot of my friends and relatives are Christians, but beliefs are a private matter, so it is rarely an issue. Indeed, I don't know whether some of my friends are devout Christians or complete atheists!
You talk about the full power of the atheist state, yet, for the outsider, America is absolutely steeped in Christianity. Tony Blair used to say that he wouldn't dare to put his Christianity on show as President Bush did, since it would go down so badly over here. Powerful people in the USA are very vocal Christians ~ including fundamentalists. I would doubt that American children are in danger from atheism ~ unless it is a response to all of the Christianity they hear about.
And, no, I really don't listen to demons ~ either consciously or otherwise. And I actually consider myself to be a highly moral person.
Trish_M— As for your second comment I think a bit of context is in order. I did agree with you that of course evolution theory has logic in it. I mean if the theory itself were illogical no one would believe it at all. Talk about blue eyes, long bird beaks, and long-necked giraffes—Mendel stuff really—within evolutionary theory is very logical. I mean that I can see the logic in it. Everything that appears to make logical sense is not necessarily the truth.
To understand why I used the word illogical to Onusonus you have read what he wrote. He is not talking about evolution as adaptation. He is pointing out the absurdity of the conclusions some people draw from the logic of evolution—which are highly illogical. So there are many small points or small steps within evolution theory that I can easily see the logic of but the final conclusion is a leap into absurdity: that people evolved totally by chance from tadpoles, blah blah blah.
As for your second point I am saying a person who buys into evolutionary theory because they don't know any better will not be condemned by God for it. Believing what you've been brainwashed to believe is not a sin for the victim. It is a sin for the perpetrator.
The fact that people have come up with excuses to sin is as old as Adam and Eve. And there is no question evolution is used this way.
Trish_M— Well, of course you do not consciously listen to demons and do what they say. That is not how it works. Where do your thoughts come from? If you suddenly get an impulse to do something, where does that come from? Now I know Freud says from your "subconscious." Has science proven that there even is a subconscious? That is Freud's way—since he was an avowed atheist—of explaining away the supernatural world.
I agree that children should be able to make up their own minds. But the public schools teach them theories and ideas and concepts as proven indisputible FACT for the simple reason that our schools are controlled by Secular Humanists who have their own religion they want the children to abide by. When the full power of the state comes down on the side of atheism it is no longer a fair contest of ideas for the children to "decide by themselves." That is why millions of children have been pulled out of the public schools and more every day. The most unfair part is that all people must support the public school even if they pay $10,000 per child per year to send their children to private schools. THAT is what needs to change. I feel the same way about that as you would if I forced you to pay for religious schools.
James, really!!!
Here you go again!
You recently wrote: "I agree that there is logic in the theory of evolution"
But now: “All this evolution stuff just looks preposterous to me; highly illogical.”
You also wrote: "I do not think anybody will go to hell for believing in evolution. I do think people will go to hell for rejecting God"
But now: “I don't see how people can buy into it unless they are willing to just believe anything as long as it appears to grant them carte blanche for sin.“
So,
Is there logic, or isn’t there?
Is evolution about being sinful, or isn’t it?
May I, here and now, assure you that I am not ‘sinful.
Perfect? No! Of course not.
But full of sin? No!
I am fed up of Christian fundamentalists accusing everyone of being such evil creatures.
For Heaven’s sake!!!
But that is not the point of my argument, which is that accepting evolution is not, by any wild stretch of the imagination, a ‘carte blanche for sin’!
Where on earth do you get these absolutely nonsensical ideas!?
Even your fellow Christians accept evolution.
What makes you so 100% sure that you are right, and the others are wrong?
If these insinuations were not so ridiculous, they would be truly insulting!
Onusonus— That's what I'm saying! What you're saying. All this evolution stuff just looks preposterous to me; highly illogical. I don't see how people can buy into it unless they are willing to just believe anything as long as it appears to grant them carte blanche for sin.
Your comments are outstanding. I enjoyed reading them. Thank you for visiting my Hub.
Hello James.
Thank you for respecting my view, even if you disagree with it ~ as I respect your right to your own opinion , even though I disagree with your conclusions.
As I said, I am not going to get into repeating and re-repeating arguments any further.
However, to your comment about demons ~ I do not listen to wild suggestions by devils, I use my own brain ~ my 'God-given' brain, if you like.
As for education, I have given my opinions on this, elsewhere.
I believe that to teach creationism in a Biology science class would be akin to teaching about Thor's hammer in a Physics science class. It is not science; it does not belong there.
However, I have said before that my RE teacher ~ an Anglican priest ~ came into our 'Evolution' lesson to give his views on the subject. I think that this was fine. As it happened, he felt that evolution fitted in with Christianity ~ as so many Christians do.
Of course, things are different in the USA. I'm guessing that priests only work in, or with, Christian faith schools over there ~ and not in state schools.
I believe that Christianity ~ including creationism ~ should be explained in Religious Education 'Humanities' lessons, as part of 'what Christians believe' ~ followed by what others believe. It's not a Christian instruction class, but a Christian information class. Do you have this sort of thing in the USA?
Children should be able to make up their own minds ~ but they should not be told nonsense like 'evolutionists believe that apes give birth to humans'.
This hub is well written, I find it interesting that the written history of humanity only started a few thousand years ago. Are we to believe that humanity slowly grew over millions of years and all of a sudden learned to write?
It would be a huge spike in the growing process if for millions of years we were evolving from ape-like ancestors and then all of a sudden learned to read, write, build great socioties and structures, and learn about the universe to the point where we have actually built rocket ships which have landed on various planets. Not to mention the complex machienery which continues to grow in complexity exponentially.
Trish_M— I surely respect you and I totally agree that everybody has a right to their opinions. My only beef is with what children are taught in public schools because it greatly effects the society in which I live. I have no power to condemn you, nor would I. I think you're a pretty cool chick. :-)
hemustincrease— Your comments are extraordinarily beautiful. Thank you for this wonderful testimony.
I wrote this article because a big lie is taught to American schoolchildren as the truth. It causes many to deny their true nature. It is a severe downgrade of the human condition.
I sure appreciate your immeasurable contributions to this discussion. Thanks again. :D
quicksand— I appreciate your excellent evaluation. Thank you for sharing your insights with us. It is always good to hear from you.
SirDent— I am all for knowledge and education. I have fervently sought knowledge and wisdom all my life. When I was 12, I read the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica from A to Z. Knowledge is great unless in contradicts God. Then it is bad. Bad enough to read it but double bad to repeat to others.
Trish_M— I do not think anybody will go to hell for believing in evolution. I do think people will go to hell for rejecting God. I don't think a person believing in evolution is necessarily immoral. I do think God takes umbrage at people who influence other people through persuasive argument to reject God.
I know you don't believe in angels or demons. But hypothetically, if there were demons I would expect them to whsiper in your ear "You were not created in God's Image; there is no God. You are just an advanced ape on earth with no purpose and no meaning. Just go with your animal instincts. If it feels good do it. There is no price to pay for sin. There is no God who sees what you do and what is in your heart. You die and rot in the ground and that's it. There's no judgment day and no hereafter. So grab all you can buddy because this is it!"
Narcissistic nihilism.
SirDent— I appreciate the Scriptures, brother. I do believe that permanent truth is better than temporary truth that is later supplanted by new information, or new concepts, ideas and theories.
Trish_M— I agree that there is logic in the theory of evolution. But it is also promotes the idea that life is accidental; that we are random accidents without purpose or any ultimate meaning.
The evolutionist's notion that man evolved by chance from ape-like creatures is largely based upon certain anatomical similarities between apes and men. Being convinced that such similarities "prove" an evolutionary relationship, paleoanthropologists have declared certain fossil apes to be particularly "man-like" and, thus, ancestral to man.
Children in school are taught that human beings evolved from an ape ancestor through the same "unpredictable process" as every other living thing.
Hello Hemustincrease
I respect your right to believe as you wish, but I am discussing a scientific theory and you are asking about my goodness and the security of my future and giving me a Christian sermon. It is a totally different discussion. I have been a Christian and I didn't feel comfortable there. I feel much happier being agnostic. I am not rejecting God, but I am not so knowledgeable on the subject that I can say that I know whether he is there or what he thinks.
To say that 'Evolution is a modern twist on a lie' is going against all of the evidence.
I will say no more on the subject. There is, quite obviously, no point. It is obvious to me that evolutionary theory is correct; I cannot understand that it isn't to others ~ but that's up to them.
James, SirDent, Hemustincrease, et al,
I wish you all well ~ but please do not condemn those who do not share your opinions and beliefs ~ whether on your own behalf, or God's. That is unfair.
Sir Dent, I simply responded to what you posted.
Hi Trish
This side of heaven nobody has a monopoly on truth. Christians sadly divide over many doctrines and that is not of God. :(
That is down to our remaining corrupt natures. But Christians have access to the One who is Truth. And they have the Spirit of God to lead them and to guide them into all truth.
And it is He who has defined evil for us. It is He who has revealed to us the origin of evil in Genesis (along with the origin of most, if not all, things we see today, languages, cultures, clothing, marriage, government etc) and so we have to be careful to speak His truth and to do so in love. God in His Word says that a ‘fool says in his heart, there is no God’. I do understand that this is something you consider to be an unfair description. But remember that it comes from God. Christians did not decide on their own account to call Darwin a fool or any other athiest. God calls them that.
I condemn nobody. That is not my place. The only reason i am no longer under condemnation is the cross of Christ. It is certainly not from any personal merit either in knowledge or good works or any other thing. On the day of judgement, only one thing will truly matter. Do we stand alone before God or do we stand with an Advocate? Those Christians (sinners who have sincerely repented of their sins and put their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and boast only in the cross and no merit of their own) who die believing evolution to be a part of Gods creative work, will stand no less washed in His blood than those who were fundamental creationists. Hell is reserved for those who reject Christ, not for those who died without a 100% understanding of Biblical truths. If that were the case, we would all be hell bound.
The Bible speaks very plainly about what evil is. It also says that those who fear the Lord must hate evil. And must cling to what is good. The Bible gives many definitions of evil. And every single Christian has accepted that outside of Christ, they were evil and dead in their sins. A Christians hates the sin and the evil within his or her own heart most of all. For that is what nailed their beloved Saviour to the cross and saw Him take the full wrath of God in their place. And although we also do hate evil around us in the world, whether in the form of behaviour or false religion etc, our primary desire is to love all and to draw people to the cross where they can find rest for their souls and life and peace. That has to include truth, which by default will require refuting lies.
Atheists choose to live rejecting God. They willingly reject Him and exchange the Truth for a lie. (Gods Word). They refuse to consider the evil within their own hearts and they as such consider the cross to be foolishness. ‘God' calls those things evil. But he also provides for them a way to be reconciled to Himself. The way is Jesus. But as long as atheists reject God, they will reject His Son also and their own life condemns them. God tells us that there are “none who are good, no not one, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. A Christian is righteous only because Christ’s righteousness has been imputed to him. Through faith. By grace. Not through works lest any boast. The Christians boast is in Christ crucified. Christians are not righteous in and of themselves.
Evolution is a modern twist on a lie that has been around from the garden of Eden. There is nothing new under the sun. Satan uses the exact same lies today as he did then. “Did God really say?” “This will make you wise”.
God says in His Word "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5:20
Christians bear witness to Gods truth, not to their own. And every single living soul will stand accountable for what they did with that truth. The Bible hold the answers to all life’s questions. From it we can go to the evidence around us and stand more and more in awe at His glory. But as long as we reject the truth we will be doing as a previous comment stated “ever learning and never coming to the truth’.
This is about so much more than origins. This is about the end of things aswell. You cannot ever do justice to the truth of origins without an equal study of what has been revealed about the end of this present age. “I AM the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last.”
This is about eternity. Is yours secure? Do you really want to stand based on your own goodness? In all honesty i would far rather speak of the beauty of Christ Jesus. I could do that all day long and never tire of it. :) But maybe i need to go do that somehub else. LOL
sincere blessings to you......and may God grant you His peace in this and all other matters of life, through His Son
The discoveries of many great scientists were all the result of investigating, experimenting, and evaluating results. Logical deductions bring forth theories that continue getting proven all the time. All accepted theories have been proven to be precise when actually put to use. I need not elaborate here. Arriving at theories using logical deductions with one link leading to another to create a situation where certainity prevailed and enabled scientists to present their theories to the world to be put to use for the gain of mankind. En route there were no MISSING LINKS to create any doubts. :)
How many of them have come to the knowledge of the truth? I am not against learning and education. Knowledge and education is good, but only if done in proper balance. To deny God, is to deny life.
Not all scientists are atheists and I get that. Many are atheists though and they only do what they want to do. I do believe that most atheists are all those things listed above.
Just as you twisted my words around to make it seem like I am against education makes you a false accuser. Are you highminded? Your posts suggest that you are.
Lovers of pleasures? Do what feels good is a quote that many make. Live life to the fullest without giving any regard to God. Need I say more?
As I said before, I have no particular desire to change people's beliefs ~ only to explain the theory of evolution, correctly ~ because so much nonsense has been written about it ~ and to get certain Christian fundamentalists to speak more fairly about atheists and evolutionists.
If we can simply agree to disagree ~ but respect alternative views ~ then I think that ~ for my part ~ I might as well draw the debate to a close ~ unless anyone has anything to say to me, specifically.
Hello SirDent,
Yes, scientists, and most interesting and interested people, are constantly learning. I don’t understand your problem with this.
Are you against learning and education?
Why would I want to deny your quote???
Are you suggesting that scientists and other learned people are ‘lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures ...’?
I have no idea how many of them love God, or turn away from him. All I know is that their role in life is to research ‘life the universe and everything’. What they discover is simply there. Their discoveries are their discoveries ~ they do not decide the morality of the discoverer.
Hello again, Hemustincrease :)
Sorry it has taken a while to respond to your points.
Modern medicine has ‘saved’ many lives. Of course, by ‘saving’, I mean enabled to live a longer life, not prevented death all together. Evolution is not about keeping people alive for ever, it is an explanation, for how life on earth is as it is, compared to how it was.
The fact that doctors carry out abortions does not mean that lives have not been extended by modern medicine. Abortion is a separate issue ~ though it has already been mentioned on this thread. Medicine, generally, could be seen as a separate issue, too, but it is relevant.
One geneticist ~ Steve Jones ~ believes that, in developed countries, because medicine can keep alive those, who might otherwise have died as infants, it is enabling humans to defy evolution, thus artificially ending any potential evolutionary changes. It is possible that evolutionists, like him, might suggest that death will indeed soon be ‘preventable’, but it’s not part of evolutionary theory; it is, as I said, about defying it.
I think that many people may suggest that some unfortunate babies may be better off aborted, but I see no reason to link this with evolution. It is a separate discussion. What could be said is that, once born, this child might die naturally, anyway. That is what happens, when creatures cannot cope with ~ or fit in with ~ their environment. When this happens, the ones that fit, happily, survive; the ones that do not, don’t survive. The reasons for not fitting may be to do with illness, or to do with being very visible to predators, for example. This is what is meant by ‘survival of the fittest’, though many people misunderstand it.
I know about diseases and mutations. I have relatives with such health problems. I am not a doctor or a scientist, but the ailments I know of result from a recessive back cross. Since ‘recessives’ are less common than ‘dominants’, then I am guessing that it is this relative rareness which enables them to survive, because, for the most part, they are ‘hidden’. And the very fact that the people involved can survive, and, in some cases, in enough numbers to pass on the mutation, self-evidently means that it is not always immediately fatal ~ as some mutations would be.
But mutations can, indeed, be beneficial.
As I said, the light brown mouse, who lived on dark brown land, in the desert was one of those creatures who did not ‘fit’ and so did not ‘survive’. It was eaten by predators. The mutation that made his descendants black was, most definitely, beneficial for them ~ unless, of course, they moved back into the sandy areas. Then it would have a negative effect. It all depends on the creature and its circumstances. For pandas, the mutated wrist, which can be used as a thumb, is beneficial, because it helps the panda to eat bamboo.
And I think that I mentioned the people who live at high altitudes on Mount Everest. Their blood circulations have changed. They are not like those of other people. This change prevents them having strokes, etc, as others might, if they lived at that altitude. That is a beneficial mutation. There are probably others. Light skin, in the relatively sunless north, enables us to get enough Vitamin D. That could be considered another ‘good’ mutation.
It is quite possible that much of the illness we see today is the result of less strong babies surviving because of modern medicine. There are also a lot of illnesses caused by smoking and other bad habits. Some ‘mutations’ may be caused by man made poisons, radiation, drinking or drug-taking during pregnancy etc.
I didn’t say that mutations were ‘on the whole a good thing’, I said that it depends upon circumstances whether they are beneficial or not, and that those which cause serious health problems would often die with their ‘victims’.
Genetic testing of the foetus?
I was offered foetal testing, because of my age when I was pregnant. I refused it. However, if I knew that I carried a horrible ailment, which could have caused my baby to suffer, then I might have considered it ~ so I do not blame those who do.
I agree that some doctors are too quick to advise abortion. Some of my doctors used the word rather too often and I complained to them about it. But this discussion is not about the horrors of abortion, it is about the comparative truth of evolution and creation, and whether it is right to say that evolutionists believe that apes give birth to humans, and whether atheists and evolutionists are being led astray by the devil and deserve hell.
Dogs, if left to themselves, might have evolved into creatures something like those that currently exist. Some ‘varieties’ would not have survived, because the mutations would not have been advantageous under normal circumstances and they would, probably, have led to the creature’s death ~ along with the death of the mutated gene that caused the problem.
They would have inherited, and passed on, many ‘wolf’ genes, and they would have received ‘new’ traits because of mutation. As long as these mutations were either harmless, or beneficial, then these would have been added to their ‘gene bank’ for future inheritance by descendants.
I appreciate that ‘we all hold ... information in our DNA .. which is .. recessive’. Some is also not ‘switched on’. And yes, ‘it retains all of its original information and may ... be expressed again in future generations’. I have written about this in my hub. Yes, ‘The facts are indisputable’. I agree with you on this.
I, too, assume that there are many, many scientists, who know a lot more about this matter than I do.
Many Christians accept evolution as true and they also believe in God ~ even a Creator God. Yet some other Christians believe that they are right and that everyone else is wrong ~ including their fellow Christians, whom they condemn to Hell, because the devil has, supposedly, lured them from the paths of righteousness.
This is wrong. Everyone has the right to their own opinions and they should not be told that they belong to the devil, just because their ideas are different from the beliefs of others. Who decides which ones are the righteous Christians and which are the corrupted ones? God? Well, has God actually said that evolution is immoral or incorrect?
It is also wrong to liken Darwin to Hitler. The poor man is not even alive to defend himself. He described his discoveries. That is all he did ~ and genetical and geological research support his findings. He should not be vilified as he is.
Neither should evolutionists be described as fools who believe that apes can turn into humans, or give birth to humans. They believe that ancient ape-like creatures evolved into humans, chimps, etc. The word is ‘evolved’ ~ not turned into.
And atheists should not be condemned as evil. They are not. Of course some may do wrong, but so may Christians. Atheists are not the agents of the devil and neither are evolutionists.
I do not know what you think about these issues, Hemustincrease, but I hope that you do not condemn decent people for what they consider to be truth.
I agree that polite debate aids knowledge and also that, without hearing the tone of voice, or seeing the facial expressions, it is easy to misunderstand people’s intentions, etc.
Yes, age, illness and childbirth have turned much of my brain to porridge too. Luckily, writing, researching and discussing issues helps me to repair it a little : ) : ) : )
Trish said: Scientists are constantly learning.
SirDent: Nearly two thousand years ago the Apostle Paul wrote: "2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Can you deny that it was written back then?
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Hello James
Yes, of course I know that 'evil' may be used as a noun, but it is not, in my opinion, an 'entity' that has come into the world, as you describe ~ sometimes personified as 'the devil'. This is the definition you quote as 'An evil force, power, or personification' but, just because the definition is in the dictionary, does not mean that it exists. 'Fairies' are in the dictionary.
I am not particularly surprised that 'Only 14 percent of Americans believe in evolution'. This strong belief in creationism is, as I said, very much a American phenomenon. I imagine it may be the case where other religions are strong, too.
Evolution is not really random chance. There is a real logic behind it. I am surprised that you cannot see it.
There is no need to be sarcastic about the research of scientists. Do you refuse to accept other scientific advances, too, and mock them? ~ I doubt it!
Scientists are constantly learning. As I have quoted before, 'if science thought that it knew everything, then it would stop'. Creationism is stuck in a position that cannot acknowledge anything new, because it is restricted by some ancient stories in the Bible.
Theoretically, wolves could mate with poodles, but I see no reason why very early man and their near ancestors the ancestral apes could not have mated, too. We have now evolved too far from those apes ~ which are now extinct, anyway, so no-one has actually tried.
Technological advancement may be related to evolution, but it is not evolution. Social Darwinism is not 'the theory of evolution'.
Evolution is about adapting to our environment; not about being better or worse.
I am not going to get into the 'contradictions' discussion here. This thread already has so many strands that it makes it difficult to follow.
So what, actually, is the definition of evolution in American school text books? (Could you give an exact quote, please, as partial quotes can be misleading.)
Trish_M— I am well aware of the scientific consensus on these issues. When it comes to God, most scientists will say that is beyond their purview. The Man of God is the expert on God, not the scientist. I know that only about a thousand scientists have gone on record in writing that they do not believe life is a random accident but is the result of an intelligent designer. If it were not for persecution, I am sure that number would be much higher.
And about a thousand Men of the Cloth have come out and said they no longer believe in the Creation story. Either way, it is a matter of faith. Because neither concept can be proven nor disproven (without a time machine).
hemustincrease— You have a great section in your response about information and disorder. We know that God called order out of chaos and the world we inhabit thus began. God is the God of order. That is why we had a scientific revolution in the first place: the founders of modern science put forth the idea that the orderliness of God in His universe might be discoverable and understood by men. All the great scientists before Darwin believed that science was a gift granted to us by God to discover Him and the glorious wonders of His Creativity.
Information. Too much ordered information in DNA to be accidental. That's all I'm going to say about that. :)
Trish_M— I think the flaw in your argument is that wolves and poodles can have sex and produce offspring, yes? I don't think apes and humans can pull that off. Though they have tried—henceforth the AIDS epidemic.
The rest of your rebuttal is pretty well thought out and articulated. I appreciate your participation in this debate.
One thing though: you keep on accusing me of deliberately misleading people about the beliefs of evolutionists. That is simply not true. I am not misleading anybody about anything. I am presenting some truths that might make you uncomfortable.
There may be as many definitions of evolution as there are evolutionists. The views of them I presented here comes from American public high school textbooks and the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago.
hemustincrease— There you are! I suppose I should have credited your quote. I had a bit of fear that if I did I might cause you to come under attack. But yes: that is your quote. Thank you for joining the discussion.
You raise a very interesting point. If we are evolving then that evolving would necessarily be towards something better, in fact a new species of being that would supersede poor old homo sapiens. Since our mutations tend to denigrate our stock rather than improve it, it belies evolutionary theory, yes?
I think a lot of people see technological advancement and from that get the mistaken notion that the human species is advancing apace. Social Science and Social Darwinism are based on this concept. In fact, if one really buys into Darwinsim, why not Eugenics? I mean, if the human race is evolving into a higher species here on earth why not use selective breeding (and its corresponding sterilization of the weak gened) to move things along?
You also have a great point about the original being superior, in which case, we should want to go back to being apes! :-)
This alone disproves evolution because its macro idea depends on the highest form of life (humans) having evolved from the lowest ( a single celled organism). In fact evolution works in the opposite direction?
I think I follow. Thanks for such fabulous commentaries.
Trish_M— I study my Bible every day and I see absolutely no contradictions whatsoever.
So evil is only an adjective? It is in my dictionary quite prominently as a noun:
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction.
SirDent— Naturally scientists are constantly decided that they were wrong before. In fact, on this note we can all agree on evolution: scientific theories are observably evolving. :D
Gypsy Willow— While I certainly appreciate your faith in fossils, I do not believe anyone has ever seen any living thing "evolve" into a different living thing; nor has any two living things ever been seen to give birth to something that is not the same kind of living thing as the parents that reproduced it.
Trish_M— Only 14 percent of Americans believe in evolution as you do: that human beings are random accidents that just happened to evolve by chance from lower life forms. And I would say plenty of them are uneducated: they don't read books, they simply believe what some teacher told them. It is amazing that only 14 percent believe this considering it is the only view taught in all public schools.
44 percent believe in flat out Creationism—which includes the "young earth" idea. 42 percent believe scientists who say the earth is super old but nonetheless still also believe in the Creator God of the Bible.
Myself, I don't take a side on the age of the earth. The fact is: nobody knows. And I don't care.
Good idea, Hemustincrease.
I'm off to bed now :)
Trish
I will hop over to your hubs on evolution and read them through when i get the time. That may save you rewriting what you have already put down elsewhere. Just a thought.
Hi
I have actually written some hubs on evolution, which explain my thoughts on the subject and how I arrived at them. I am also preparing a couple more.
I am agnostic. I don't know whether God exists or not, but I do not believe that God is as described in the Bible. An ancient tribe, from the Eastern Mediterranean area, attempted to explain their understanding of what seemed supernatural ~ but that doesn't mean that they got everything ~ or, indeed, anything ~ right. I see nothing in its creation story which makes any sense to me and I see no evidence that it is correct.
It's very late, here, so I shall answer your comments tomorrow :)
Hi Trish
Thanks for the feedback.
My comment about medicine was a very general one. I see ‘some’ good in modern medicine. I see much more harm in it. I see more babies killed in the womb from modern medicine than ‘saved’. (And some of this is due to the claim from evolution that a baby diagnosed in the womb with some genetic 'dis' order is better off dead. I presume for the purpose of trying to work for this ’survival of the fittest’?) I see much more ‘regression’ in it than progression. I worked in it for 15 years and came away truly considering that i had done the patients more harm than good. You said evolution was not about preventing death? Would all evolutionists agree with you on that? I have read some rather intriguing things from evolutionists claiming that death will indeed soon be ‘preventable’.
Back to the mutations. You said that mutations can have either beneficial or negative effects. And that if they are not beneficial they tend to die out or be rare. Did you know that 1 in a 100 people have some form of Von Willebrands disease? This is due to a mutation. Granted not all those people have a serious bleeding disorder, but all of them will be negatively affected at some point in their life. Even a carrier of this mutation has to receive prophylactic treatment for dental work and other surgeries etc to prevent major bleeding. 1 in 100 people is far from rare. Why is this mutation not dying out?
I am not aware of any mutation which is beneficial? Can you give an example? (I am aware of some providing a minimal benefit at the same time as producing their negative effects. But not a purely beneficial mutant.)
As for mutations that are not beneficial dying out? Do you have examples of this too? If mutations that were of no benefit all died out then most of our hospitals would be twiddling their thumbs most of the day long. Much of the illness presently treated is down to a mutation of some sort or another. Not all mutations are inherited.
Most illness is called a DIS ORDER. Things are out of order. Something is not working as it should be. Information has been interpreted incorrectly, either in the wrong sequence or there are bits missing or proliferation of immature cells etc etc. Modern medicine has learned alot about the mutations, the problems which caused the person to ‘suffer’ in some way. Do you believe medicine should then seek to encourage mutations? If they are on the whole a good thing? Is medicine simply to sympathise with those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from the affects of mutant genes, but yet not seek to bring things back to ‘order’ but rather encourage more dis order for the sake of future generations? What do you think about genetic testing of the fetus? Which mutations in the unborn baby are of benefit and as such the woman counselled to keep her baby? Does not medicine consider any mutation discovered in the unborn baby to be bad and as such counsel the woman to kill her baby?
I entirely agree that human interference in dog breeding is the cause of all the unfortunate dogs we see around today. BUT....that does not refute the fact that dogs left to themselves which express external changes, are not adding any new information. They are simply calling on the original information and expressing from that what is needed in their current environment. Colour is a good example. Because many animals have changed colour aswell as humans of course. This is due to the exact same genetic code being expressed differently. We all hold an awful lot of information in our DNA make up which is not expressed. It is recessive. But it is nonetheless THERE and (unless there is a mutation) it retains all its original information and may very well be expressed again in future generations. This is easy to see in some families, when the kids look nothing like their parents. The parents have both passed down their recessive genes in relation to hair colour or skin colour (as obvious external differences) and so the children now express a recessive trait in that family which may not have been SEEN for many generations.
The facts are indisputable. It is as always the interpretation of those facts which differ. But i truly find these debates very edifying. They prompt me to search deeper into the facts and i always come away from them having gained something.
And i have no doubt that there are very many ‘facts’ out there which an evolutionist has more knowledge of than me. ( I wish i had much more time to study these things more deeply and completely.) And i am always willing to hear them out. But my interpretation of them would always begin with the Word of God.
If i have given a false explanation of what you believe i do apologise. That is certainly not my intention at all. I ask questions in order to better grasp what it is that you DO believe evolution to be. And the benefit of a written debate such as this, is the open opportunity to clarify our comments and beliefs if ever they have been wrongly represented. (But i suppose that is also the bad side of written debate. It is all too easy to misinterpret one another and begin from a wrong base altogether. I gladly accept my own decayed brain to be an ever present reality.........especially, it would seem, since motherhood came upon me. LOL)
Hello Hemustincrease :)
I was going to try to check out that quote, so thanks for introducing yourself.
With regard mutations, they can have beneficial or harmful effects, according to the place and the situation.
If they are not beneficial, they tend to die out or be very rare. ‘Survival of the fittest’ or, better, ‘most suited’ usually sees to that.
For example, there is a light-coloured mouse living in a sandy American desert. A mutation has resulted in some of these mice being dark in colour. The latter do very well in the darker area. The mutation is good for these creatures, but would be bad for those in the sandier regions. Predators ensure that light mice do not survive in dark areas, and vice versa. This mutation is good in one situation, but bad in another.
Why sickle cell anaemia has survived, I do not know, unless it is connected to the malaria situation ~ which it probably is.
Sherpas on Mount Everest have evolved a circulatory system that enables them to cope with the high altitude, without becoming sick and dying. That is a 'good' mutation.
I disagree that ‘EVERY mutant gene is LESS than its original form.’ I would say that every mutant gene is different from its original form, and that the difference may be positive or negative ~ or neutral ~ depending on the circumstances.
The mutations do add traits to the gene pool, though, which does, indeed, contribute to evolution.
It is simply not true that ‘Medicine can do absolutely NOTHING to add one single day to anybody’s life’. I was very ill some years ago and, without modern medicine, might well have died. Lots of people have survived serious illness to live longer than they otherwise would have ~ because of medicine!
A hundred or so years ago, many babies died in infancy, in both Britain and the USA. Now, in the developed world, most children survive into adulthood.
You say ‘that medicine ‘can do nothing to even so much as slow down age or decay. It can offer some relief from the affects of decay and gives much false hope’. This is, self-evidently, completely untrue.
‘Of course ‘Death is the one certainty for us all’. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with preventing death, so that cannot be used as evidence that ‘There is no area of life which does not refute evolution’.
As for dogs; they are bred, by humans, according to traits that they want or need. As a result of some very silly and cruel breeding, in the name of perfect ‘pedigrees’ and ridiculous looks, some dogs have very serious health problems. However, the selfish stupidity of breeders does not alter the fact that wolves are the ancestors of poodles.
The argument that either an ape gave birth to a human or evolution did not happen is parallel to saying that either a wolf gave birth to a poodle or evolution did not happen.
The argument that, if an ape is the ancestor of a human, then, at one time, an ape must have given birth to a human, or turned into a human, is parallel to saying that if a wolf is the ancestor of a poodle, then, at one time, a wolf must have given birth to a poodle, or turned into a poodle.
Yet we know, for sure, that wolves are, indeed, the ancestors of poodles and we know that this does not mean that wolves ever gave birth to poodles or turned into poodles.
This one example that we know about should help to explain another that some people find hard to believe. The health of that poodle is irrelevant to this reasoning.
In nature ~ and dog breeding is not ‘natural’ ~ crosses that resulted in unhealthy animals would tend to die out, rather than being protected as these ‘unnatural’ hybrids are.
I do think that ‘an ape becoming a man is as ‘straight forward’ as a wolf becoming a poodle’ ~ but it happened naturally and much more slowly
‘Man coming from apes’ does follow the same pattern as wolves ‘coming from’ poodles except in one important area ~ ‘natural’ versus ‘unnatural’ selection. In natural selection, any unhealthy results would be less successful, less likely to survive, less likely to reproduce, less likely to add its mutation to the gene pool.
If humans were deliberately bred to have turquoise eyes, for example, and siblings were interbred with each other and with their other relatives, to this end, then I would expect some serious health problems to show up along with the pretty eye colour. That does not mean that all humans are less healthy than apes, etc. I am guessing that we live longer than did our ape ancestors.
You ask: why did I relate wolves and dogs to apes evolving to men? It is because I am trying to explain something that most scientists ~ and others ~ accept easily as truth, to people whose religious beliefs make them biased and either unwilling, or unable, to see its logic. The wolf – poodle scenario should explain it ~ but not if it is going to be misunderstood. As I indicated to James, I think that it is pointless trying.
You say ‘With [my] own mouth [I] have opposed evolution’. That is simply not so. My words are constantly twisted to be used against a ‘theory’, which is not my own and which is accepted as fact by most scientists ~ and even by many Christian leaders.
I think that people should be free to believe whatever they wish to believe, but I don’t think that they should mislead others, by giving false explanations, etc, of what evolution is, or what evolutionists believe.
Trish.M
The aforementioned comment was mine. :)
I was referring to mutations in genes and not to simple illness or decay in old age (although that in itself is a rather obvious contradiction to evolution). Medicine (evolutionists who happen to be doctors aswell) suggest that genetic mutations are proof of evolution. Yet EVERY mutant gene is LESS than its original form. Information held in the original is SUBTRACTED and never added. The reason medicine suggests mutations are proof of evolution is that many of them come with some supposed ‘benefit’. The assumption being that the benefit they find (which in truth is no real benefit at all) means the gene is mutating to bring ‘gain’ to the human species. The example i was speaking about was sickle cell anaemia and malaria. The mutation which causes sickle cell trait and sickle cell disease has been found to offer SOME not complete, protection against malaria. But in view of the fact that sickle cell disease now affects 1 in 500 africa americans, all of whom will not likely see age 50, i hardly see ‘benefit’ in this mutation. Malarial protection is a ‘by and by’ of a very debilitating and painful disease which KILLs people. There is NO increase for anybody who has the sickle cell trait or the disorder. There is MUCH decrease. And the so called benefit is limited to the sufferers of the DISEASE.
Medicine is a very vivid proof of the lie of evolution. In every aspect of its existence. Medicine can do absolutely NOTHING to add one single day to anybodies life. It can do nothing to even so much as slow down age or decay. It can offer some relief from the affects of decay and gives much false hope. Death is the one certainty for us all. There is no area of life which does not refute evolution. I know Whom i will believe.
"I don't know why you have so much trouble comprehending this. It is quite straightforward ~ just like wolves not giving birth to poodles, but being the ancestors of poodles.”
Trish i presume you are aware that poodles and every other ‘dog’ which has ‘evolved’ from the original is LESS than the original? I presume that you know that the further away dogs have come from their God created form the more sickness, the more deformities and the less able they are to live to their original fullest potential?
I say this because you suggest that an ape becoming a man is as ‘straight forward’ as a wolf becoming a poodle. With your own mouth you have opposed evolution. If man coming from apes follows the same pattern as wolves and poodles then i think we ought to be finding ways to get back to being apes. The original is always far superior.
And if you were aware that a poodle along with all the other poor unfortunate dog breeds of today, are inferior to the original then i apologise. But if that is the case, why did you relate it to apes evolving to men? ;)
Gypsy Willow ~ I agree! :)
Hello Sir Dent,
As I have said before, science and knowledge are ongoing works in progress.
I have explained about classification and re-classification in my hub on evolution. New information and new ideas can result in changes in classification.
In the case of the 'creatures' in question, these are what some people used to call 'missing links'.
As I asked, what do you call these? Humans? Apes?
They are part way between the two, so classification could go either way.
Not mistakes. Not stupidity. But sensible reactions to available knowledge.
Trish said: "Then you will find out about the discoveries ~ and about how scientists classified and re-classified their finds."
SirDent says: When scientists have to RE-CLASSIFY their finds, does this mean the first classification was wrong? That is what I am reading from your statement. If I am wrong, please correct me.
The evidence is in the fossils, evolution happens and is happening around us.
Hello James,
I see a difference between;
"the people, who refuse to accept the logic of evolution, are uneducated ones"'
and:
"In the main, the people, who refuse to accept the logic of evolution, are uneducated ones and creationists."
The first implies that anyone who disagrees with evolution is uneducated; the second indicates that most people who disagree with evolution are either uneducated or are Creationists. There is a substantial difference. Plenty of people are very poorly educated ~ for a variety of reasons.
Can you tell me where you get the figure that over half of educated people do not accept evolution?
Are you talking about world figures, or United states figures?
If you are talking about fundamentalist, literalist Christians, then of course they reject it. Those are the very people I was talking about ~ the Creationists, whether well educated or badly educated.
Many scientists accept evolution as proven fact. I have read this; I have hears scientists discuss the matter and, as far as I am aware this statement is true. It isn't me saying it; it is the experts. However, 'evolution' looks correct to me.
It is not particularly easy for me to watch the earth going around the sun. I have to rely on information from scientists and other experts.
Medicine is certainly not evidence against evolution. What has illness and decay, in old age, to do with evolutionary theory?
That comment you quote illustrates, as far as I can tell, yet another misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. What does 'We are LOSING information from our genes' actually mean?
'The Origin' should not be compared with 'Mein Kampf'. I can see no point in doing so. They are not alike.
The Bible, itself, is full of contradictions.
'Evil' isn't a thing that appeared; it is simply an adjective used to describe unacceptable behaviour, as decided by each individual society.
An 'evil' murderer may have been born with mental health problems, or may have been abused, or may have been brought up to believe that immoral is right, or may do as he does for other reasons. It is a complex subject. This is nothing to do with a goblin-like creature in hell, or any such like.
Regarding evolution ~ the logic is there and the evidence is there, but you are free to accept or reject it. That is your choice.
But whether or not you or I accept something, does not alter the truth. Either God created the Earth as it is; or God created the Earth and it evolved; or God had nothing to do with it and it evolved or something else.
I don't know whether God had anything to do with it. I don't even know whether God exists, or what God would be like if he did exist. I think, if there is God, then this 'knowledge' is beyond mere human comprehension.
I can see the evidence for evolution, though. It's clear, in my opinion.
quicksand— I like both your comments. You wrote:
"The soul develops on the path to the target, from "the lack of knowledge" to total knowledge."
Amen!
And I also agree with what you wrote about El Senor Diablo. Well said! :D
Trish_M— I agree with you that Anton's words are very wise indeed.
A woman left this comment on one of my other Hubs:
"There will never be speciation. We were created in HIS image and in HIS image we will remain. . . . we did not come from monkeys and we will not be turning into some super new species. Medicine is proof sufficient that we are all DECAYING. We are LOSING information from our genes. We are in no way progressing."
AntonOfTheNorth— Well, you most certainly make a plethora of fine points in your well-received commentary. Thank you very much for joining in on the conversation.
I agree with by far the majority of your words. Of course, a billion years is a blink of an eye to God, who in fact lives outside of time altogether, that being a construct for humans. And God surely could have made a universe 6,000 years old, or 6 trillion years old. And anybody who claims to know how old it is is speculating, including scientists.
Could God have evolved human beings from lower life forms? Of course. But in His Word He tells us that He formed human beings in His own Image; quite unlike the rest of His Creation. This does not square with the idea that human beings are random accidents that came from a primordial slime and are merely highly intelligent animals.
I cannot agree with your equation of The Bible with The Origin of the Species. The Origin of the Species could be better equated with Mein Kampf or The Communist Manifesto or the ideas of Sigmund Freud. God would never inspire a book that contradicts Himself.
The Bible says "Man thus became a Living Soul." This is the Truth. Your belief in it is not required to make it True.
I cannot by into the Moral Relavist position that all belief systems are equally true. Though I am quite familiar with this line of thinking.
Sure James, the only "evil" default in the the human system is the survival instinct. All other evils I believe are presented to us via a very "special subterranean splash page" by the kind courtesy of El Señor Diablo! :)
Trish_M— How then would you explain evil? Has evil evolved? Is there an evil gene?
quicksand— I think it wise to recognize the presence of evil in the world. I have no doubt about it. Thank you for chiming in with this comment.
Trish_M— I didn't misquote you. So I left out "in the main." So what. I don't see where that changed the idea behind the sentence one iota.
PART of one of your sentences says: "I am guessing that uneducated people might not know much about evolution"
There is not a person who has been to public school that hasn't had evolution drilled into their heads. More than half of them simply don't believe it. That majority is no more uneducated than those who do believe it.
We do not think scientists have the ultimate answers. We think their "truths" are not truths at all but only constantly changing truths. Yes we would rather have faith in God than mere men.
It is observable—and therefore sound science—that the earth orbits the sun. Human beings evolving from lower lifes is not observable. You can hardly equate the two. The latter is not "proven fact." I don't see how you can say that with a straight face.
Cool indeed! The soul develops on the path to the target, from "the lack of knowledge" to total knowledge.
Very wise words, Anton ~ whatever one's beliefs :)
I think there are more possible positions than Darwinism and Creationism in this discussion.
I also think that the notion that they are incompatible theories just reveals how little we as a race can know about it all.
Sure, human's come from dust. Every solid part of our body is made up of the minerals of the universe, and when we pass on, once the water leaves the body, minerals are what we are left with. We come from dust, we return to dust.
If you believe in an immortal, omnipotent, omnipresent god, then the entire life of the universe (biblical or scientific) is barely an eyeblink to this god. Why wouldn't god take 4 billion years for the first day of the universe? What's it to god? God has forever. Why wouldn't god create life by first creating the universe, then the planets, then evolving life out of selected chemicals? Why not? God has forever to do this. What's the rush?
And who's to say with certain knowledge that non-human beings have or do not have souls?
And those who believe that there is no creator, there are so many scientific observations that support form and structure on creation that it is absolutely plausible that the universe is a made thing; an artifact.
Who knows? Not a soul on the planet. For my own belief, this is on purpose. If the creator had intended us to know the one true way, there would not be a multitude of belief systems, there would be one and we would know it. That we do not (assuming you believe in a creator) is the best evidence that we are not meant to. The lack of knowledge is critical to the development of a soul.
Our direct observation of the universe is limited to the surface of a small planet in one of countless galaxies of stars. To say we know how it all works based on that is like saying I know the opinions of everyone in the country based on the small number of people who wrote in response to this article.
Everyone has a brain, no one is an idiot. We all believe what we believe because of how we feel about it, not because of what someone else believes they have proved.
Origin of Species is just a book. The Bible is just a book. So is the Quoran. So is anything written by humans.
And even if the writings were inspired by god, ". . .How do you know god did not 'spake' to Darwin?"(Inherit the Wind) How can we expect the small mind of Man to understand fully the mind of the infinite? Some chance of misunderstanding no?
Debate the issues, yes. It's part of why we are here. But I recommend we leave the 'I know' to the creator. The creator is the only one who can.
And (just my opinion) leave the disdain behind. It only serves to keep the very people you are trying to reach from listening to some of the fine points you are making.
I believe that there is evil in the world. There may be various reasons for it.
One can call it the devil, if one so wishes, but I think that this is far too simplistic.
At one time I too refused to believe in the existance of a devil. I used to say to myself, "to hell with the devil," and discontinued to believe in him.
However after reading stories of genocide, after observing the antics of a certain musician, and noting that highly immoral acts were becoming totally acceptable to society, I slowly began to believe in what I used to disbelieve. So ... to hell with the devil! :)
PS. I do not believe in the devil.
James,
I actually wrote: "In the main, the people, who refuse to accept the logic of evolution, are uneducated ones and creationists."
And, 'in the main', I think that this is probably true.
Why did you misquote me?
By omitting certain words, you made the sense of what I wrote quite different.
Originally, I intended to mention only Creationists, but I am guessing that uneducated people might not know much about evolution ~ and so might not accept it.
So this is not meant to be smug, insulting or judgmental, but, rather, an observation.
And I am not comparing anyone to me, personally, but to all of the learned scientists, and other academics, who are far more knowledgeable on the subject than I am.
Of course, if you belong to a Christian group then the chances are higher that members will be creationists, since these are the very people, whom I said also rejected evolution ~ along with less educated people, who might be ignorant on the subject.
I have acknowledged that you are obviously intelligent and educated ~ as, presumably, are your friends ~ but you all reject what the majority of scientists accept as true ~ and obviously so.
Interestingly, this is a largely American phenomenon. I don't deny that there are Creationists elsewhere, but this movement is unusually strong in the USA.
And evolution is not just an attractive idea ~ it is a scientific theory, backed up by so much evidence that many experts now regard it as proven fact.
if I have 'faith' in science, then it is because I have studied to until it satisfies my questions on the subject. It is not blind faith. I trust it, as I trust that the Earth circles the sun. That, too, is not immediately obvious to me, but I have studied enough to believe the science and to accept that it is true.
Trish_M— Oh but I have thoroughly looked at the argument that human beings are evolved from lower life forms. I see where the idea comes from, and I see why it is attractive to many. What you won't acknowledge is that you have faith in what is not seen—just as Christians do. Nobody has ever seen human beings evolve from lower life forms. Nobody has ever seen any life form evolve, not even simple bacteria. So, you take it entirely on faith.
You claim anybody that doesn't believe human beings are evolved from lower life forms by random chance—that in fact the whole universe is nothing more than an accident—simply has less "understanding" than you. That is condescending. There is nothing about your beliefs that I do not "understand." I simply think it is false and approaching the idolatry of science.
You wrote:
"the people, who refuse to accept the logic of evolution, are uneducated ones"
How smug! Absolute poppycock. Now granted, after being pounded by 17 years of evolutionists' propaganda, and told that "all intelligent people" believe in it, the theory's you believe in carry much weight by this intellectual coercion. After all, who in college wants to laughed at and ridiculed in front of 100 of their peers?
But to make out people who reject specifically the idea than all human beings are is the product of lower life forms as country bumpkin, buck-toothed imbeciles is rude. And simply not true.
No I have not noticed that. In my Christian Men's group I am probably the only one out of 100 without a college degree and none of them believe as you do.
Atheism and the rejection of the biblical story of creation by some so-called Christians IS the work of the Devil. Who else would sow such pernicious doubt in the minds of the human race as to who they really are and what life is all about and what the meaning of life is and what the purpose of life is?
Hello again :)
I disagree strongly, James, but since you are so adamant that you are correct, and you will not even really look at the logic of any other argument ~ except to miscontrue and reject it ~ then there is no point in me continuing to 'defend my position', as you call it.
However, I am not 'defending my position', I am attempting to get people, who cannot understand what is generally held as truth, to understand why it is generally held as truth.
In the main, the people, who refuse to accept the logic of evolution, are uneducated ones and creationists.
Had you noticed that?
Does that not make you wonder why, since you are obviously educated, you cannot see the reasoning behind evolution?
For some reason, your arguments and responses are all misreadings, or misunderstandings, of the science.
Scientists are not 'undecided' because they are stupid, or mistaken, or because evolution did not happen; they are 'undecided' because of the human / ape overlap.
What should one call this being ~ an ape or a human? This is the very evidence you seek ~ yet you now reject it. This explains that / how / why apes did not give birth to humans, but were the ancestors of humans.
I don't know why you have so much trouble comprehending this. It is quite straightforward ~ just like wolves not giving birth to poodles, but being the ancestors of poodles.
It isn't all 'idea' ~ where do you get this from?
Is this your assertion about evolution being only a theory, again?
You say that you know what scientific theory is ~ in which case you know that it is not just 'ideas'.
It does, indeed, have more foundation in fact than does Genesis ~ but you are correct in saying that this Bible story has no 'foundation' and is only 'taken on faith'.
Honestly, I despair.
You are interested in, and knowledgeable about, so many interesting subjects, and I have enjoyed reading your work and discussing ideas with you, but you just have a 'block' when it comes to evolution and atheists ~ which you lump together as ~ it would appear ~ the spawn of the devil.
Start thinking outside the 'Christian fundamentalist literalist' box. Open your eyes to other possibilities. You may be surprised at what you discover. :)
Trish_M— I have of course studied the "findings" of scientists and the various thinkers among them and after them who propagate this idea that human beings "evolved" from lower life forms. All it is is ideas, with no more foundation as fact than the Genesis account. Either view is taken on faith.
SirDent— I am fine, my friend. How are you?
Yea, I'd like to see those records as well. There is absolutely NO proof than any living thing other than two humans ever made a new human being. It is taken on faith because without that faith the whole scheme falls apart.
Trish_M— I'll bet they are undecided since even bacteria only reproduce the same bacteria and no living thing produces anything but itself. Your idea is based on non-humans producing humans somewhere in your chain of events but we know that only two humans can produce a human.
I do appreciate your diligent efforts to defend your position. Thank you for your participation in this discussion.
Hello Sir Dent :)
You said: "I would like to see these records and also see how they came to the conclusion that you allude to."
If you want to know about these matters, and see the information for yourself, then I recommend that you do what I did and read up on the subject. Then you will find out about the discoveries ~ and about how scientists classified and re-classified their finds.
If you want to know about this subject, then you need to read about the research. I can only give it second-hand, and I am not a scientist, so have a good read ~ there are plenty of books on the subject
Trish said, "indeed there are recorded ~ beings who are not quite ape and not quite human."
I would like to see these records and also see how they came to the conclusion that you allude to.
Hi James, how are you?
James, There is nothing that anyone can say, is there, that will get you to see the logic of this?
Aristotle and Moses were nowhere near the first humans, so they are irrelevant.
I think that we could trace back to a time when our ancestors looked more human than ape, and I think that, if we went back several generations beyond that, we would arrive at ancestors who looked more ape than human, but, somewhere in between, there would be ~ indeed there are recorded ~ beings who are not quite ape and not quite human. But that 'somewhere in between' was a mixed-up place.
So our first obvious human ~ if such a person ever existed ~ would have had parents who were human~ish, but also ape-ish. But, since all offsring are pretty much like their parents, it would be very difficult ever to draw a line.
Scientists are still undecided as to where some early humans / late apes belong in the classification system, because of this.
Trish_M— I find it highly illogical that there never appeared on this earth the first human baby, the first with 23 pair of chromosomes, the first who was just as human as you or me. Was not Aristotle just as human as you or me? Moses? If we had the information (or a time machine), if we could see all of history clearly, we could not trace your lineage back to a first human ancestor—before which, according to your beliefs, their would be non-human ancestors? That is fanciful. And it doesn't mean I don't understand it; it means it makes no sense.
Hello James
The answer does seem to include mutation, yes. Mutation + natural selection. That is all part of evolution.
(By the way, I have finally written my hub on 'The Human difference'.)
To say 'I don't see how two non-human parents ever made the first human baby' shows that you still don't seem to have understood this theory at all.
There was no 'first human baby' ~ it was a sliding scale of ape-like to human.
I appreciate that wolves could mate with dogs. However, wolves, while only mating with other wolves, do not give birth to poodles. Yet they are still the ancestors of poodles.
In the same way, ape-like creatures would not give birth to humans, but they are still the ancestors of humans.
And yes, human babies are always human ~ but, the point I am making is that daily changes will be barely noticeable, yet, over nine months, the overall change is huge.
This could be taken as an analogy (is that the correct word??) of human evolution. Change over a short period of time will be barely noticeable ~ ie parent to child ~ but over the long term ~ ie millions of years ~ change will be huge.
Trish_M— I agree that it is truly amazing how a human baby evolves from a single cell. However, from conception, it is still a human. From human DNA only a human can result. So it is not like it evolves, as in evolves from a different organism. It is human the whole time. Uninterrupted, that is all it will ever be.
I believe wolves and dogs can breed together. If so that would only make them as different as say a Harvard professor and a Papau New Guinea tribesman. Vastly different, but still the same species by the original definition of the word: a living organism that reproduces more of its own kind.
Human beings can only reproduce with other human beings. By what we know of how this works, chromosomes and all, I don't see how two non-human parents ever made the first human baby. The only answer is mutation.
I'll just add a word about dogs.
I think that most people accept that dogs descend from wolves.
Man 'selected' animals, according to the traits that they saw and desired, for whatever reason.
What happened, very quickly, with man's help could, though, happen very slowly, by natural selection ~ if the environment made it necessary. The materials ~ traits ~ obviously exist.
Basically, dogs and wolves are the same animal. But no-one would suggest that a she-wolf could (naturally) give birth to, say, a poodle, or a chihuahua.
Neither would anyone suggest that a wolf might, one day, wake up to find that he had changed into a Scots terrier.
Wolves have evolved and the result is a variety of dogs ~ and wolves. Over a much longer period and, without human intervention, ape-like beings have evolved into people and various apes. It's the same basic process.
Hello James,
Yes, that is what I am saying ~ well, sort of.
If we could, by some remote chance, pin-point the first being that might be considered fully and only 'homo sapiens', then his parents would be very, very, very similar to him ~ so similar, in fact, that it would be hard to say that they were not fully homo sapiens, too. In fact, I think that this exercise would be completely impossible.
This is because evolutionary change is so gradual that change from one generation to the next is barely noticeable.
You don't seem to like the word 'gradual', but it cannot be omitted, because it is so important in this context.
I have now found your argument ~ about apes either giving birth to humans or turning into humans ~ elsewhere on the Internet. It was posted by a Christian minister. This sort of thing is being passed around the Web ~ but it is very misleading because it is so wrong.
I believe that we descend from ape-like creatures, but I do not believe that there was a sudden transition. Descending from such a creature, over a long period of evolutionary change, is different from being born of.
After all, babies 'evolve' from single cell organisms to multi-trillion cell organisms in only nine months ~ but they don't change enormously overnight. The change is gradual. The difference between the 'baby' at conception and at birth is phenomenal, but differences from day to day are barely noticeable.
niall.tubbs— I agree it takes faith to believe in God. It also takes faith to believe that all living things come from a single celled ancestor. Thank you for visiting. I appreciate your comments.
Trish_M— I do not understand you. I do listen to every word said to me. Are you saying that never in history was there a FIRST homo sapien? That cannot be. I am a homo sapien; you are a homo sapien; if we trace our ancestors all the way back, does there not have to be a first homo sapien?
James;your more intelligent than your essay based on faith and not fact.
James, you said that you had read my hub. If you have, then you will already have seen the explanation. There is no point in my repeating it as nauseum.
Evolution is gradual ~ very, very, very, very gradual ~ so no, we do not 'all agree that one day there was no homo sapien and the next day there was'. Surely you can understand that, if change is that gradual, over thousands and millions of years, then it will not be a case of ape today and human tomorrow!
Evolutionists do not believe that an ape gave birth to a human, so it is, indeed, deceitful to say that they do.
You may read a lot, James ~ including the hubs of myself and others ~ but you appear only to take in what you wish to take in. You seem to ignore anything that does not fit into your worldview. There is no point in me or anyone else writing words, which you will read but ignore, twist or misunderstand (deliberately or otherwise).
You seem to be knowledgeable, educated, well-read, etc, yet you will not take note of anything I, or others, say that is not part of your biased set of beliefs and opinions.
Disagree if you wish. I have no problem with that. I respect your right to believe in the creation, and in anything else that you wish to believe ~ but do not ignore, twist or deliberately mislead others, please.
That is not respectful or fair.
Ape-like creatures changed ~ via your micro evolution ~ and also by mutation, very, very gradually, over many generations and many many years. These changes meant that some of their descendants would develop into chimpanzees, etc, and others would develop into humans.
Trish_M— You wrote: "As for deceit ~ when you tell people that evolutionists believe that apes turn into humans or give birth to humans ~ that is deceiving them. You must realise that."
No, I do not realize that at all. I deceive no one. You are trying to use circumlocution around a huge hole in your worldview.
At some point there appeared on earth the first of what you would call a homo sapien. This very numero uno human person had to have been either 1) a creature that turned into the first human being from something else OR 2) born to a sexual union of two non-human beings. (Either way, in fact, a mutant.)
If there is a third choice as to where the very first human being came from, please explain. I don't want another long-winded page about the "gradualness" of it all. No matter if it took a hundred zillion zillion years, we all agree that one day there was no homo sapien and the next day there was. Did he or she come from a sexual union of non-homo-sapiens as a mutant? Or was it a living being that became the first homo sapien during its life by mutation?
Gypsy Willow— Well, well! The "Spy who came in from the Cold!" :D
I appreciate you following along, and then now letting us know you have been lurking. Thank you for your fine comments.
If we have souls, then there is no reason why animals should not have souls.
James.
You didn't seem to follow what I meant about African 'Adam' and Mitochondrial 'Eve', so I have added something extra to my hub ~ it's also in the comments. I hope that this should clarify matters.
As for deceit ~ when you tell people that evolutionists believe that apes turn into humans or give birth to humans ~ that is deceiving them. You must realise that. You say that you have read my hub, so you know, now, that this is not what they believe at all.
I have been following the comments to your hub with interest. As a life long collector and hunter of fossils (I am too amateur to be called a Paleontologist!)I cannot accept your arguments but I would not waste words arguing with you as your outlook is so blinkered. This is not an insult James merely an observation. Good luck to you!
James A Watkins Hub Author 8 months ago
Chasuk— I had not heard of that book but I wrote down the name on a sticky note and I will read some reviews of it later today. I may pick it up, too. Thank you for the suggestion.