I agree with your criticism. Not every source of answers works.

I do not know how important it is to think of Eve as literally a person. The story explains human nature and tells us a lot we can use for wisdom.

The organization attempts to coordinate fruitful life. Not the worst attempt

When does Good become Evil?

Every thing God made is Good,
Even sex, drugs and rock and roll.

It was man who made sex evil

It was man who made drugs evil

It was man who made music evil.

I'll say it again everything God made he made it good, it was man who drew the line between good and evil.

Already addressed this- there are mountains of evidence, easily discovered by enrolling in bio courses, books, scientific literature etc. Im not going to rehash this mountain of evidence in a post on a bb forum. Remember...none of this online debate matters or means anything in terms of how the scientific community continues to operate, how evolution continues to be taught in the classroom. Zilch.

Im not saying listen to me....Im saying go research any of this more than, say 5 minutes on creationist websites. If thats all you are doing, you are being misled. You are making some rather ridiculous assumptions about what I've studied since you dont even know me. Bizarre post.

"You havent studied evolutionary biology behind (sic) simple mcgraw hill textbooks and children nature documentaries".

See how easy that is? And actually my claim is supported since you think evolution isnt supported by evidence lmao, in strict disagreement with almost the entire community of trained biologists in the field.

It's hard not to point to your ignorance when you say "mountains", easily discoverable, and "almost the entire community"

Just wrong.

Do you honestly think most biologists dont subscribe to evolution? Yes or no?

Do you honestly think evolution is not taught in basically every biology classroom? Yes or no?

There is no ignorance here, unless you mean your own. Your posts are either oblivious or just being dishonest. Feel free to research that mountain of evidence- you wont because it requires effort and in some cases isnt easy. Based on your posts there is likely no training whatsoever in the subject.

Coming from the guy who thinks AP biology/college biology course is the end all be all.

Once again the way you're talking demonstrates your diminutive knowledge. We are talking about evolutionary biology. Within that you still have several branches such as anatomy, population genetics etc.

You can start with James Shapiro, Masatoshi Nei, Eva Joblancka, Lynn Margulis; all who challenge natural selection.

Darwinism/Evolution has gone beyond a theory to a dogma/religious worldview. You see it even now in many psychological explanations on why genders do specific things etc. If you were an academic you would know the term, just-so story. Once you converse or study any higher level course in evolutionary biology you will understand evolution the way most people understand it is a meme.

Let's start with a basic question. Have you read On the Origin of Species?

Yes, as well as The Descent of Man. I do not recommend these texts to people learning about the fact of evolution though, there are more accessibly written books out there.

Why are you not answering my Yes/No questions? I asked some simple questions. Do most biologists subscribe to evolution? Is evolution included in bio textbooks and taught in almost all biology classrooms these days?

You are completely missing the reason I bring up AP bio and university biology classes: it is afairquestion to ask, if, as you incorrectly state, evolution is not supported by evidence, why then is it part of biology curriculums everywhere across the country? Because it is. Why, almost everywhere, are students learning this 'unsupported' notion? Wouldnt that be pretty remarkable? We dont waste our time teaching incorrect facts in other classrooms- the earth is flat in earth science classrooms, that matter is composed of the four essences in chemistry classrooms, how to square to circle in math classrooms, or that heavier objects fall faster (as Aristotle incorrectly believed) in physics classrooms. Why are all the devious practicing biologist professors going out of their way to teach something not supported by evidence?

It'salmost as ifevolution and common descent are indeed evidenced, that the vast majority of practicing biologists subscribe to it, and thats why we teach it in the biology classroom. And this includes the names you bring up here, you'll see that while they work within the overall framework that evolution occurs- that's literally the premise of most of their work, they might disagree on some particulars about it here and there (and other scientists will disagree with them... some bizarre claims made by that last name you mentioned btw. )- this discussion is not about those particulars, of 'neo-Darwinism', epigenetic factors, or even the role of natural selection (which does play a large role)...it's about the big picture of evolution of life on earth, which is overwhelmingly evidenced from the fossil, molecular, biogeographical, embryological, comparative morphological, and genetic records.

Not sure if the posts Im responding to are troll posts, but these are low quality posts. If you think the biological community thinks evolution is bunk, you are wrong and completely at odds with it. Again, I suspect little to no formal training in the subject. The fact you are saying 'just a theory' tells me your 'background' is basically looking at ID and/or creationist website talking points, because you dont seem to understand what a scientific theory even is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

The fact that mutual breedability is not transitive makes speciation inevitable by conventional definition. In fact, the very notion of species is problematic and symptomatic of this dogmatic thinking where we pretend there is some archetype that embodies the perfect example of that species. The notion of species in modern terms is understood to be a kind of heuristic clustering rather than a sharp partition.

This thread is now 8 pages tonight?! When I left it was on the second page.

Again..there is not one single example of species change from one to another different species..everything in that link is an example of Epigenetics..would you like to try again?

And please..use your own words..if you can.

Polyploid speciation is another example of unambiguous speciation and while flukish, is widespread in botany, with concrete examples in modern recorded history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy

In fact many of our crops are polyploid, as evidenced by their chromosomes/genomes.


Edit: the reason why we have to turn to fast examples of speciation like polyploid speciation is obviously because evolution of, say, mammalian species takes a sh*** load of geological time, and we shouldnt expect to see that in the span of our lives. I dont think Paul understands that you can still completely, and utterly, view evolution as an evidenced fact even if we hadnomodern examples of speciation (which isnt the case). The evidence is written all over things we can observe in modern times, from fossils to the genetic record, to those other fields mentioned above. Its like saying historians cant conclude ancient roman civilization happened because they never actually talked to an ancient Roman. Errr no, they left behind evidence....

Look in a mirror and you'll be able to spot a missing link.

The secularist lack Love in their threads, so they like to come to ours to a get a little taste of it. Make sure to share grace with them while they are here.

This has to be a troll post. The KKK was founded by Democrats, and every single Grand Wizard has voted Democrat with the exception of one (David Duke). Democrats fought to keep slavery and support the killing of black children in the womb. Democrat Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) was an outspoken racists that stated she wished to eradicate the black race by opening abortion clinics in predominantly black neighborhoods.

Abortion has taken more Black American lives than every other cause of death combined since 1973.



Also 2 Thessalonians 3:10-For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Again, looks like atheists have nothing but a circular redundant response of either ad hominem attacks, or an appeal to authority.

Pathetic

We have evidence of Roman artifacts, coinage, writings, etc. You do not have evidence of species change from one to another...Epigenetics again is not Darwinian Evolution by any stretch of the imagination. Let's also not forget that Dawwin presupposed the first living cell.

Lettuce go back... the term "evolution" has multiple meanings, so to avoid the fallacy of equivocation let's define the terms.

1) Change over time- this can refer to the small scale variation we see when looking at the Galapagos Finches with the beaks getting a bit bigger or smaller in response to their weather conditions. It can also refer to the fact that life on the planet today is different than it was during the Jurassic Period when the Dinosaurs were roaming the Earth or the Cambrian when there were trilobites. NOBODY DOUBTS THIS, nor do I.

2) Second meaning of evolution is that all forms of life are connected by common ancestry back to a single form, a one celled organism. Darwin represented this with his Tree of Life Model. However an increasingly amount of evolutionary biologists are becoming extremely skeptical of this, due to the abundant evidence of discontinuity in the fossil record, & discontinuity in the study of genomics. We have things like Orphan Genes, which are big classes of genes that are unique to certain taxa & do not show ANY similarities to other genes ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE GENOMIC DATA BASE. We have genetic information popping into existence in different classes of organisms..discontinuity...there is no evidence of this at all.

3) The third meaning of evolution is very contentious. The idea that natural selection & random mutation are sufficient to produce all the new forms of life AND the appearance of design that livings form manifest. An unguided process that produces the APPEARANCE OF DESIGN, BUT NOT THE REALITY OF IT. That's the meaning of evolution that is clearly absurd… Purely undirected processes cannot produce the complexity or the information necessary to build the complexity to make a living organism.

It's fine to hate religion, as religion is not from God. But you know what Good is, doing good unto others, that comes from Up High, I don't care who you believe, my Islamic Brothers live in peace down here with us because they know where they're going after they die, the same goes for the Christ bros. The only real difference is the geographic aspect of where you were born / raised

I sense a lot of Anger in you Brother, over the Bible, or over religion, that you put time and effort into making it known to all of us. Anger is choice, just like happiness is. Who or what you choose to believe is entirely up to you, because it's not about religion, it's about a personal relationship with the Creator of the universe. I hope you may find Peace some day, Brother

Because they're red herrings. It doesn't matter if they do or don't or whether it's broadly taught as the amount of people believing in a subject doesn't make it true or false. What happens to be true on a popular level isn't always the same on a higher academic level. An example of this is sub atomic models.

The answer of WHY is multiple and too large of a leap for your mind to handle at this moment.

Now let's look at your language. You are saying these are facts (We dont waste our time teaching incorrect facts). Theories aren't facts.

Evolution is a probabilistic framework that has multiple assumptions that can be challenged with core concepts that are refutable.

You keep going to this creationist ad homenium. The evolutionary biologists I mentioned are all atheists.

If you actually read Darwin's book you would realize that the theory fails due to what it relies on.

What does Darwin start his book with? You can use the facts in my book to come up with the opposite conclusion of mine.

In chapter 6 he talks about the problems of his theory. What was his number one thing that causes his theory to collapse?

Gradualism. Variations that take place take at a gradual pace. That has been proven to be false. Fossil record has shown that punctuated equilibrium to be true.

Evolutionary biology is change over time. Darwinism/"Evolution" (what you and the masses believe) is single ancestor/tree of life.

So what you are claiming is that biochemistry, genetics, anatomy, psychology, sociology can all be explained and are in congruence to a single conclusion. Science doesn't prove this. Same data can lead to multiple conclusions.

Now let's look at a Black Swan.

Nope, humans, who are apes, descended from apes, and the evidence vastly supports this.

This is what you said. Where do you get this? Similar physical traits. Due to them, they have a common ancestor/descent. This is homology.
This is what your "biologists"/everyone believes.

This is an assumption. You cannot conclude from your assumption and say that it is true.

Is there something to refute this? Homoplasy. Marsupial and Placental Saber tooth tiger. []https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/...hylogeny8.asp]

It's not just physical but also on the genetic level. Echolocation gene in bats and dolphins are identical yet are not due to common ancestry.

Why do you say we are apes/chimps? Because we have 99% similar DNA right?

This is the most stupid idea to proliferate to the masses. This was due to a 1975 publication by King and Wilson.
How did they get to this number? Maybe you should read the paper. But I'll save you some time.

First, they assumed common ancestry. So they discarded all non-coding genes. If you studied biology like you claim you would know this is the vast majority of your DNA (95-97%).

Second, they only compared what was similar and discarded other things. If you read Jeremy Taylor's book Not a Chimp ( a person who does believe in Common Descent w/ Apes) he shows that you can have 99% if you fraud the data like the 1975 study, you can come up with figures like 85~ percent or even as low as 20% if you compare the proteins. All of this is SUBJECTIVE.

Why?

You can't calculate humaness versus chimpness. The genomes have different sizes, orphan genes (zero percent similarity), gene positioning matters etc.

And even if they DID have 99%, it doesn't mean common ancestor.

Once I'm off recharge I'm gonna neg your stupid ass for negging me.

How would you describe a real christian would behave?

Is this post being serious? 'dont have evidence of species change' when an example numerously observed in plants was given in the very post you are quoting? Wtf?

As for the rest of the rambling....sorry, merely saying things doesnt make them true. Nothing you are saying changes a thing I just said....you can literally see the evidence of evolution from numerous lines, whether you can observe realtime speciation or not (you can....).

Paul, I have to remind you: you, as well as the other guy, are embarking on a futile attempt here of arguing basic science. It literally doesnt matter what you think about any of this, the field of biology moves forward the exact same and students learn the correct fact of evolution and common ancestry in schools today. You can whine about all you want. The paradigm wont be overturned by mere wordy debates on a forum.

I'll await your groundbreaking, published research.

Without wasting my time reading this long post, did you or did you not answer my yes/no questions I asked you twice previously in this babble? This, as well, is a yes or no question. No need for a long response.

Like I told Paul, I await your groundbreaking, paradigm shifting, published research refuting evolutionary biology and common descent. That's not refuted with mere wordy arguments on forums. Until then, students will continue to happily learn the truth about mans origins from ancestral primates in basically every bio classroom, and the field of biology will continue doing its thing. Regardless of how much it triggers you.

RektWise man

So is that a yes or no? What are your answers to my two questions above?

LOL you’re gonna pretend you don’t have a response and revert to your dumb questions. Of course they were answered. Was it my eloquence that drowns your comprehension

What was the answer, yes or no? To questions 1 and 2? This shouldnt be that difficult....

Plants remaining plants adapting to surroundings and environment is not an example of species change..unless you are not understanding what the word species means...

Those were my own words. If you look up any ring species, you will see plenty of examples of "species" by your definition that have clearly diverged since they can no longer interbreed.

Why don't you tell us your definition of species and whether you think it forms an appropriate partition for life on Earth? To a biologist, "species" is a term very poorly defined and loosely used. But we need to at least understand how you'd begin to define "species" in order to show you that speciation happened.