A Civil Discussion: Evolution, Science, Theology, Atheism, Climate

Okay; I want to revisit this theory of evolution.

If man evolved from monkeys as the theory goes, why didn't the OTHER monkeys and apes evolve?

That’s easy enough to answer. This is a popular misconception of Evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory does not state or predict that man evolved from Monkeys. Evolutionary theory predicts that Humans and the rest of the primates had a common ancestor from which they evolved. So primates/monkeys have evolved. They just didn’t evolve into modern humans.
 
How does the THEORY of evolution square with religious beliefs?

It doesn’t. It’s not supposed to or more correctly it’s not a relevant question in science. Science is predicated completely on natural causation and specifically excludes supernatural causation.

Once supernatural causation is suggested, in science, for some phenomena that particular study is no longer science but something other than science.

To put that in neutral terms you may appreciate liberal post modernism is probably as great a threat to science as it also violates the ground rules of science as much as religion does. Postmodernism rejects objective observation as naive realism and that truth relies on an individuals perception of truth. Now this might be fine in the arts or social sciences but science is predicated also on empirical objective observations which can be independently verified by others.
 
It doesn’t. It’s not supposed to or more correctly it’s not a relevant question in science. Science is predicated completely on natural causation and specifically excludes supernatural causation.

Once supernatural causation is suggested, in science, for some phenomena that particular study is no longer science but something other than science.

To put that in neutral terms you may appreciate liberal post modernism is probably as great a threat to science as it also violates the ground rules of science as much as religion does. Postmodernism rejects objective observation as naive realism and that truth relies on an individuals perception of truth. Now this might be fine in the arts or social sciences but science is predicated also on empirical objective observations which can be independently verified by others.

Ever hear of Leibniz? The inventor of calculus along with Newton. He said science can have practical value but cannot claim to be true.
 
REALLY? So what is the theory of evolution all about if not contrary to religious teachings? Do elaborate.

To put it simply evolutionary theory models speciation and provides a predictive framework that explains the vast numbers of different life forms that exist. What it is not is a theory that explains the ultimate origins of life. Which is the primary misconception that those of certain religious beliefs have about evolutionary theory for which they object too.

In other words evolutionary theory is not contrary to religious teachings. That is an utterly false dichotomy. I know many who have studied biology at a professional level who are devoutly religious yet they understand what evolutionary theory actually is and appreciate its huge value in understanding how life and living systems change over time.

My own personal religious belief is that God plays the ultimate hand but this my own personal religious belief but it’s not a a scientific understanding and that is not contradictory. One can believe in both.
 
Last edited:
I don't think evolution and religious teachings have to be incompatible.

But one is scientific, and the other is spiritual. Those who adhere more to the latter can look to "intelligent design" and that kind of thing - but I always find it odd that people oppose the idea of evolution, or find the theory of it threatening.

It just is. The fossil record is pretty clear, and we see evolution happening today. It's not some fringe idea.
 
Paradox. Irrational. Natural selection produces variations???????!? How does a selection produce more selections??????!?

Gene flow and random genetic mutation provide the variation. Natural selection results when certain mutations produce advantages in environmental adaptation and survivability.
 
I read his book.

Very intelligent fellow—and pretty entertaining lol. Berlinski has all of credentials of the elitists in academia but he’s dismissed as a crank because only cranks disbelieve evolution and other dogmas.

Therefore, Berlinski is a crank lol. That actually passes for logic these days.

Well that could be that Berlinski is working from a totally false premise. Scientist don’t believe all theories are true and thus religion is false.

This is a false representation (which is a polite way of saying “He’s lying”) as all scientific theories are built upon the falsification principle. The falsification principle means that all scientific theories can, in principle, be falsified. This one go the most important steps of the scientific method and is predicated on the principle that all human knowledge is tentative and that all scientific theories, no matter how well it’s understood to be correct, will have some probability of being wrong even if that probability is very small.

This is an incredibly important fundamental and foundation part of the scientific method as it makes science self correcting. If a major new discovery is made that has a very high probability of being correct and it makes useful predictions that observed and independently validated than any scientific theory that is impacted by this new information than that theory must modify to account for this knew knowledge or it will die.

That there is proof enough that what Berlinski state is at best wrong and at worst a lie. I’ve had a lot of experience with this too. If someone makes a claim that “Science says this is always true but my data shows this is true blah, blah, blah yet science rejects this discovery.” Then you would be wise to review that premise carefully as more often as not it will be false as Berlinski’s is in this case.

I have quite of bit of experience with this type of logical fallacy, as a lot of us have, by quack physicians trying to sell an unproven modality (e.g. snake oil) by saying something similar. “The medical establishment says only this and only this will work for that but my evidence shows this is what works.

Usually the is that hasn’t been said by the medical establishment.
 
Last edited:
So, if the Theory of Natural Selection is true, what created all the variations?

Geography and time.

Consider the North and South Rim Squirrels of the Grand Canyon.

https://scienecerules.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/the-speciation-of-squirrels/
Arizona’s Grand Canyon was formed creating a geographic barrier between the squirrels that lived there. They could no longer contact and reproduce with each other. Two separate species inhabit the north and south rims of the canyon. The Kaibab squirrels inhabit the north rim and the Abert squirrels inhabit the south rim. According to National Geographic, this type of speciation is allopatric speciation. In the article, it says, “Allopatric speciation occurs when a species separates into 2 separate groups which are isolated from one another…When Arizona’s Grand Canyon formed, squirrels and other small mammals that had once been part of a single population could no longer contact and reproduce with each other across this new geographic barrier.”

This leads me to say that according to Macroevolution, the type of reproductive barrier that is causing these 2 species to split is called Geographical Isolation. It says that, ” The Kaibab squirrel became geographically isolated from the common ancestor with its closest relative, the Abert squirrel in the North Rim of the Grand Canyon about 10,000 years ago.” This indicates that it is geographical isolation because the Grand Canyon is literally a physical barrier between the two species.
 
That article is a laughably dumb assertion that somehow, just because we are "related" to apes, that doesn't mean we didn't "evolve" from them.

So I would again assert, without insults, how is it that only SOME apes evolved yet so many others had not if the THEORY of evolution is to hold true?

Thomas Henry Huxley applied Darwin's ideas to humans, using paleontology and comparative anatomy to provide strong evidence that humans and apes shared a common ancestry. Some were disturbed by this since it implied that humans did not have a special place in the universe.

Well because we are Apes and we did evolve into humans. The other apes have gone their own evolutionary way.

The mistake you’re making here, no offense intended, is that you are kind of placing the cart before the horse and confusing yourself on the biological taxonomy.

In biological taxonomy you have a classification system that starts at the top with Kingdom which contains all the groups of life forms followed by 9 sub groupings of life forms in which at the very bottom level is the species subcategory which is the basic unit of taxonomy and defined as a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals that can interbreed.

The Great Apes is just a synonym for the taxonomic “Family” classification for the Hominidae Family. Which is four steps above the species classification in the taxonomic hierarchy. A taxonomic family is made up of groups of species in which the species groups have widely similar homologies (similar or the same anatomical structures). Human beings (aka Homo Sapiens or modern humans) belong to the Hominidae or Great Apes Family. That is to say Humans are Great Apes. So are Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos and Orangutans, etc,.

However all these species are distinct and separate species that cannot interbreed. Because the other Great Apes species cannot interbreed with each other there is no evolutionary pathway for Homo Sapiens to have evolved from the other great apes. Evolutionary theory would not predict this happening but what it does predict is that due to their great number of homologies that somewhere back in time all the Great Apes species shared a common ancestor.

I hope this explains for you why humans have not evolved from other Great Apes.
 
Gravity is not a theory you moron; we know that it exists. Evolution; yes it's PURE THEORY. Grow a fucking brain.

the·o·ry
ˈTHirē/
noun
noun: theory; plural noun: theories

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"

Uh yeah. Gravity is a theory. You might want to do some research here.

https://www.britannica.com/summary/gravity-physics
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory
 
I don't think evolution and religious teachings have to be incompatible.

But one is scientific, and the other is spiritual. Those who adhere more to the latter can look to "intelligent design" and that kind of thing - but I always find it odd that people oppose the idea of evolution, or find the theory of it threatening.

It just is. The fossil record is pretty clear, and we see evolution happening today. It's not some fringe idea.

Exactly. I think the well known evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould said it best when he described the philosophies of religion and science as being “Non-Overlapping Magesteria”.
 
Gene flow and random genetic mutation provide the variation. Natural selection results when certain mutations produce advantages in environmental adaptation and survivability.

It’s really the opposite of what he stated. It is random genetic mutations which is the mechanism for natural selection and not the other way around as he stated.
 
I don't think evolution and religious teachings have to be incompatible.

But one is scientific, and the other is spiritual. Those who adhere more to the latter can look to "intelligent design" and that kind of thing - but I always find it odd that people oppose the idea of evolution, or find the theory of it threatening.

It just is. The fossil record is pretty clear, and we see evolution happening today. It's not some fringe idea.

A lot of the mainline Protestant and Catholic Churches a accept evolutionary biology.

In principle, I don't think intelligent design is a stupid idea. Looking at nature, we see design, and it's not unreasonable to believe in a designer underlying it. Intelligent design was good enough for Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and Gregor Mendel.

But they understood it was just an idea or belief. It wasn't a scientific theory or hypothesis.
 
It’s really the opposite of what he stated. It is random genetic mutations which is the mechanism for natural selection and not the other way around as he stated.

Yes, natural selection is a consequence of genetic mutation or genetic drift. But this Dummkopff is the biggest science denier on the board.
 
A lot of the mainline Protestant and Catholic Churches a accept evolutionary biology.

In principle, I don't think intelligent design is a stupid idea. Looking at nature, we see design, and it's not unreasonable to believe in a designer underlying it. Intelligent design was good enough for Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and Gregor Mendel.

But they understood it was just an idea or belief. It wasn't a scientific theory or hypothesis.

I’d have to disagree with you there. I think there’s heaps of evidence that design has nothing to do with it.

I’ll give you an example. Compare the frontal appendages of cetaceans, bats and great apes. They all have three distinctly different different functions. Cetaceans use theirs to steer through water, bats use theirs to fly and the great apes use theirs to grasp and manipulate objects.

Now look at the anatomy of the bones of the three species frontal appendages and they are virtually identical. All three species frontal appendages bone structures are comprised of a humorous, a radius and ulna bones, the same number of carpal bones in the same position and an identical number of metacarpal bones.

Yet all three have the same bone structures yet completely different functions. From a design standpoint they are nothing close to optimal which is a major violation of the principles of design.

I would consider this serious evidence against design.
 
You forgot random genetic mutations.

That's why they evolved in different directions. It was geography that kept them from interbreeding.

Homo sapiens sapiens is about 300,000 years old but the "races" were only about 50,000 years old. Why? Because about 70,000 years ago a super volcano caused a mass extinction event and human beings almost went extinct. It took a few thousand years for human beings to reproduce their numbers enough to spread out far and wide enough for those genetic mutations to alter facial characteristics and skin tone. Interbreeding would homogenize any group but if geography separated them, they'd evolve in different directions like the squirrels.

https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwi...ings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c
How Human Beings Almost Vanished From Earth In 70,000 B.C.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mount-Toba
Mount Toba, ancient volcano located in the Barisan Mountains, north-central Sumatra, Indonesia. A massive eruption sometime between 71,000 and 74,000 years ago expelled an estimated 2,800 cubic km (about 670 cubic miles) of ash and lava. That event is considered by many volcanologists to be the largest volcanic eruption in all of human history, and some scientists maintain that it sent the planet into a severe ice age that nearly caused the extinction of modern humans.
 
Back
Top